Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Social Care Reform

Virendra Sharma: When he plans to bring forward proposals on social care reform.

Mark Harper: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on funding for a plan to reform social care for (a) older people and (b) people of working age.

Martin Vickers: What progress he is making on bringing forward plans to reform adult social care.

Sajid Javid: I want people to be able to get the care they need when they need it and to have the choices they want. I want people to live their life in full and to live independently as part of a community for as long as possible without facing an astronomical care bill. We are committed to social care reform, and we will bring forward proposals this year.

Virendra Sharma: I thank the Secretary of State for responding to my initial question. Eleven years into this Tory Government, 10 years on from Dilnot and almost 700 days since the Prime Minister promised
“to fix social care, once and for all”,
looking at it and studying the options is not enough for the four out of five people who say, “We need a solution now.” Is this just another of the Prime Minister’s promises that will not quite materialise?

Sajid Javid: We have already seen substantial increases in adult social care funding, but the Government have said that we want a long-term, sustainable solution, so we will bring forward proposals on that. The hon. Gentleman will know that later today we are debating the Health and Care Bill, which is also about structural reform, so I look forward to seeing him in the Aye Lobby.

Mark Harper: May I just say to the Chancellor—the Secretary of State, rather—that when he brings forward the proposals, will he make sure that he addresses social care for working-age adults, which actually accounts for more than half of public spending? The debate is always focused on older people, and people of working age often get forgotten. The reason for my slip just now is that he will be aware, as a former Chancellor, that the tax burden was at a 50-year high before covid. When he brings forward the proposals, can we not just default to putting up taxes, however they are disguised, but look at overall Government spending, set some priorities and make some choices about what we think is important? Social care is important, but we need to make those choices about overall Government spending.

Sajid Javid: First, my right hon. Friend is right to bring to the House’s attention the way that the Government are also working on social care for working-age people. He is also right to point out—I was thinking about this the other day—that around 55% of total adult social care spending is for working-age adults, and it is important that we continue to provide that support. He will be pleased to know that I am working with the current Chancellor and other Cabinet colleagues on bringing forward a more sustainable long-term plan, and I hope he will support it when it comes forward.

Martin Vickers: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said so far and the moves he is making to deal with the social care issue. One thing that elderly people particularly are worried about when they are in care or in hospital are the recent reports of “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” orders. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that they will only be put in place with the authority of the patient or their next of kin? Is he making inquiries into recent reports of their widespread use?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Department commissioned the Care Quality Commission to review the DNACPR decisions that were being made during the first wave of the pandemic. That review was published in March, and the Department then established a new ministerial oversight group that will be responsible for delivery and the required changes that were recommended in the review. We want to ensure adherence to the guidance throughout the system whenever DNACPR orders are used. The first meeting of this new group will take place on 8 June.

Liz Kendall: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I wondered whether he might be able to clarify something for me. Five days ago, he told the Local Government Association conference that for social care reform,
“we may not be able to announce the whole plan…with all the details there”,
but that he hoped to
“set out…the general sense of direction”.
The general sense of direction! It is two years since the Prime Minister made a clear promise to fix the crisis in social care “once and for all”. Since then, more than 40,000 care home residents have died from covid-19 and 2 million elderly and disabled people have applied for care but had their request turned down. Millions more  families and staff have been pushed to breaking point, so may I ask the Secretary of State: what is the plan? When will we see the plan? Will it provide the full details that he and the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) have promised, or does keeping your word mean nothing to anyone in government anymore?

Sajid Javid: I think the hon. Lady may well have misunderstood what I said at the conference; I am not sure she listened to the whole session. It is worth repeating that the Government are absolutely committed to coming forward with a sustainable plan for adult social care and to bringing forward that plan to make sure that every person when they reach old age in our country can have the dignity they deserve. We will bring forward full proposals—a full plan—this year.

Covid-19: Departmental Response

Steven Bonnar: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s response to the covid-19 outbreak.

Sajid Javid: Since the start of the pandemic, we have acted swiftly to reduce the spread of the virus and to keep the public safe. As our vaccine programme progresses, links between cases and hospitalisations weaken, and that means that we are confident we can move forward with step 4, as I set out in the House yesterday.

Steven Bonnar: I thank the Health Secretary for that answer. After the planned changes next week, the Health Secretary is predicting that covid cases will reach 100,000 a day. Research is suggesting that that could result in 3,000 hospital admissions and again put our health services under pressure. What is his response to Dr Mike Ryan of the World Health Organisation, who described the proposals to remove all covid measures and simply let people get infected as “epidemiological stupidity”?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman talks, understandably, about pressure on the NHS, and he will know that the restrictions we have necessarily had in place during the course of this pandemic so far have also led to considerable pressure on the NHS, especially when it comes to non-covid health problems. He may be aware, perhaps for his own constituents, that mental health problems are up, there are many undiagnosed cancer cases, domestic violence is up and child abuse is up. I hope he will agree with me that one of the things we can look forward to as we gradually start removing restrictions is helping people with their many non-covid health problems too.

Justin Madders: I also welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. I hope he will soon see that the Department performs best when it follows the scientific advice. This morning, Professor Graham Medley, the chief modeller for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, said of mask wearing that
“if it’s not mandated it probably won’t do any good.”
That advice would explain why, last year, the Government moved from just guidance on mask wearing in May 2020 to making it compulsory on public transport in   June and in shops in July. So if the advice is clear and the Government took that advice last year, why on earth are they moving away from it now?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government’s decisions are rightly informed by the best possible scientific advice there is and, as well as that, looking at the data and then taking all of that into account when reaching decisions. The hon. Gentleman asks about masks, and I have answered that question a number of times at the Dispatch Box. I am very happy to repeat that we are moving away from a system of regulation to guidance, but in that guidance, which was published yesterday, we have made it very clear that in certain situations masks will still make sense, and we believe that people will use their common sense and follow that guidance.

NHS Estate

Robbie Moore: What steps he is taking to improve the infrastructure of the NHS estate.

Philip Dunne: What steps he is taking to improve the infrastructure of the NHS estate.

Tom Randall: What steps he is taking to improve the infrastructure of the NHS estate.

Edward Argar: In our manifesto, we committed to building 40 new hospitals by 2030 and to upgrading another 20 hospitals. We are delivering on this commitment, and we now have plans to build 48 new hospitals this decade. We are also delivering improvements across the country to hospital maintenance, eradicating mental health dormitories and improving A&E capacity. Finally, the Department has received a £9.4 billion capital settlement for 2021-22, including the first year of a £5.4 billion multi-year commitment until 2024-25 for new hospitals and hospital upgrades, and £4.2 billion for NHS trusts’ operational capital.

Robbie Moore: Some 83% of the Airedale hospital in my constituency is built from aerated concrete, with the building containing 50,000 aerated concrete panels in its construction, which is five times more than any other hospital in the UK. This building material is known for its structural deficiencies, so can my hon. Friend assure me that when his Department considers new infrastructure projects, schemes with the highest risk profile, such as the Airedale hospital, will be an absolute priority?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner in this House on behalf of his local hospital at Airedale, going the extra mile, I gather from the Keighley News, by committing to run 100k in 10 weeks to raise funds for, among other things, the Friends of Airedale Hospital—I hope, if he has not finished that yet, it is going well.
To my hon. Friend’s substantive point, he raises an important issue. Airedale has been allocated capital investment in the millions for the 2021-22 financial year from a funding budget that is ring-fenced for RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—plank remediation, but I can reassure him that, as we look to set the criteria for the next eight hospitals, safety considerations are highly likely to be one of the key considerations.

Philip Dunne: The Minister will be aware that, in March 2018, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust was allocated over £300 million to undertake a radical transformation of its acute hospitals at Shrewsbury and Telford. Since then, the trust’s management have been engaged in finalising the strategic business case, but as a consequence of changes to the Green Book and clinical standards the cost will have increased. Will the Minister commit to meet with Shropshire and Telford MPs once the business case is complete to help to ensure that the project can still be delivered?

Edward Argar: NHS E&I and the Department of Health and Social Care wrote to the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust on 19 November last year confirming we remain committed to supporting the scheme. This letter confirmed the allocation remains at £312 million at this time, and of course my right hon. Friend will recall that I committed to approving the request in principle for £6 million of early funding to continue to develop the scheme. It is an important scheme, we want to see it proceed and I am very happy to meet him and fellow Shropshire colleagues.

Tom Randall: In my role as chair of the all-party group for axial spondyloarthritis I have heard from many about the importance of hydrotherapy pools in supporting those living with the condition, but there has been a concern that the reopening of these pools following the pandemic has been jeopardised by space within hospitals being allocated to other functions and a general low level of prioritisation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we have robust plans in place to reopen as many hydrotherapy pools as possible, and will he consider meeting me to discuss this matter in further detail?

Edward Argar: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the all-party group for their work. He raises an important point: the challenges posed by infection control and the impact of the pandemic on the operation of hospitals. That has had an impact in this space, but I entirely recognise the value and importance of hydrotherapy as a treatment for particular conditions and I will be delighted to meet him.

Jon Ashworth: Of course the number of general and acute beds open across the estate impacts on a trust’s ability to get on top of the elective backlog, which now stands at 5.3 million—a record high—with 336,000 waiting over a year and 7,000 waiting over two years for treatment. On appointment, the Secretary of State promised trusts that they would get everything they need to get through the backlog. So how much will trusts get and when will they get it?

Edward Argar: It is an important question. The Secretary of State has made it clear that tackling the elective backlog is one of his key priorities in his new role. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have already committed £1 billion to helping to tackle the elective backlog. That, of course, comes on top of the record funding of £33.9 billion to ’23-24 for our NHS, but that commitment remains. We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that our NHS can tackle the elective backlog and get those waiting lists down.

Jon Ashworth: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but if it is a priority of the new Secretary of State why on Friday were trusts told that the threshold for accessing that elective recovery funding was increasing, effectively making it harder for a trust to access funding at just the time when hospital admissions for covid are increasing and we have trusts, such as in Leeds and Birmingham, cancelling cancer surgery? Surely we should be giving trusts more resources now, not restricting access to the elective recovery fund.

Edward Argar: In terms of the elective recovery fund, we have worked with the NHS to determine the right thresholds and the right premiums for payment for elective activity over and above what we would be expecting in the circumstances. The NHS is doing an amazing job in difficult circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, with the impact that infection prevention control restrictions have had on the ability of trusts to see the number of people that they normally would. Trusts are taking huge strides to restore services and the ERF is there to help to ensure that they are funded for that activity level so that they can get provision up and above where it needs to be in order to get the waiting lists down.

NHS: Trade Deals

Ian Lavery: What steps he plans to take to ensure that the NHS is excluded from future trade deals.

Edward Argar: We have been clear that the NHS, the price it pays for medicines and the services it provides are off the table in our trade negotiations. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public, nor forced us to pay for more medicines. My Department works closely with the Department for International Trade to ensure that this is reflected in the negotiations of new trade deals.

Ian Lavery: Last week we proudly celebrated the wonderful creation of the NHS—the most cherished of all national institutions—yet grave fears remain about its ultimate privatisation under this Government. If the Government are determined to sign up to the provisions in the trans-Pacific partnership for investor-state dispute settlement, can the Minister at least do one thing today to limit that damage? Will he guarantee that the NHS will be totally exempt from the scope of those ISDS lawsuits and ensure that that exemption is written into the terms of the UK’s accession?

Edward Argar: The Government have been clear in our published approach to negotiations, both on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and any US trade deal, that protecting the NHS is a fundamental principle of our trade policy. The UK will ensure that the terms we sign up to in any trade negotiation uphold the Government’s manifesto commitment that the NHS, its services and the cost of medicines are not on the table, and that we hold true to our principles underpinning the NHS—of a service available to all at the point of need, free.

Childhood Obesity

Damian Hinds: What steps he is taking to tackle childhood obesity.

Suzanne Webb: What steps he is taking to tackle childhood obesity.

Jo Churchill: We are committed to halving childhood obesity in England by 2030, and the 2020 strategy takes decisive action to help everybody to achieve and maintain that healthier weight. We have five trailblazer sites working to create a healthy environment for our children. We have laid regulations for out-of-home calorie labelling. We have put £100 million into funding for adult and child weight management, and announced the introduction of some of the toughest advertising restrictions—both on TV and online—regarding children’s exposure to high fat, salt and sugar products. This is about the cumulative effect of several policies.

Damian Hinds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that wide range of measures. May I also encourage her to work closely with colleagues at the Department for Education and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on an expanded children’s sports and activity plan, both in and out of school, to try to make 60 minutes a day as much a norm as five-a-day fruit and vegetables by bringing in the power of sports clubs and the governing bodies, and finally getting more school facilities available for out-of-hours use?

Jo Churchill: My right hon. Friend’s question is music to my ears. He will be pleased to hear that, last week, along with Ministers from DCMS and the DFE, I was in front of the Lords National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee talking about doing just that—about how we can build on the DFE’s £10.1 million contribution, so that we can unlock the 40% of facilities that lie on school estates and help to get children active for 60 minutes a day. We will be publishing our cross-departmental update to the school sport and activity action plan later this year.

Suzanne Webb: Ultra-processed food is basically high in fat, high in salt and high in sugar, and it is highly addictive. I believe that it plays a significant part in the growing crisis that is obesity. I genuinely believe that it is not food in itself, when one considers all the flavourings and artificial colourings that have to go into it to make it taste like food in the first instance. Does my hon. Friend agree that the food industry needs to play its part in tackling the obesity crisis, and not contribute to it?

Jo Churchill: I do. This is about helping people and caring for people. We know the detrimental effect obesity has on all stages of our lives. It costs personally, in productivity terms, as well as the NHS, being the precursor to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, musculoskeletal conditions and so on. We cannot afford for the country not to tackle this issue. I am encouraged, but want to see business go faster in the reformulation ambition to reduce the salt, sugar and fat in these products.

General Practice Data for Planning and Research

Daniel Zeichner: What progress he has made on consultations on the General Practice Data for Planning and Research roll-out.

Jo Churchill: We are committed to being transparent about the collection and use of data. We paused the implementation of GP data for planning and research services, and we have had productive discussions with the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, health charities and others. We have listened to the concerns and we will respond to them. We will continue to listen and we will take our time. We will show patients and clinicians why they can have full trust and confidence in the programme, where data will only be accessed through a secure environment with the oversight of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the National Data Guardian.

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Zeichner has withdrawn, so let us go to the SNP spokesperson.

Philippa Whitford: The Government’s plan to give pharmaceutical firms access to pseudo-anonymised data from GP practices in England is creating public concern and distrust, just like the failed care.data project of 2013. Most patients would be happy to see better communication and information sharing within the NHS, as well as for public health and academic research, but are concerned about commercial access to their data. Will the Minister halt the process to allow time for genuine debate and public consultation?

Jo Churchill: The hon. Member and I are both passionate about the use of data to enhance patient care, as she outlined. That is the prize here. We are listening. We are taking our time. The data will only be used for health and care planning and research purposes by organisations that have a legal basis and a legitimate need to use the data. NHS Digital will publish all the details of the data we have shared on our data release register. We want to build confidence. We want to build trust. We are listening, but this is an important agenda that we need to get right to deliver better care for patients.

Philippa Whitford: The problem is that the plan to allow commercial access is going to undermine the public trust in improving digitisation within the NHS, and the Minister will be aware of that. The current plans apply only to the NHS in England, but can she guarantee that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will not be used to force commercial access to patient data from Scotland’s NHS? If so, can she explain why the Department for International Trade is advertising access to the health data of 65 million people, which is the population of the whole UK?

Jo Churchill: I go back to the answer I gave: we do not allow data to be used for commercial purposes. NHS Digital will not approve requests for data where the purpose is for marketing and so on and so forth. The hon. Member would not expect me to respond on behalf of another Department, but I reiterate that we are communicating and building trust. There will be a  public information campaign. We will be working across the professions and across research to make sure that access is appropriate and proportionate. In the Health and Care Bill, we will be redoubling our efforts to make sure people have that confidence.

Alex Norris: At the previous health questions, we secured a commitment from the Minister to delay the implementation date for this data grab in order to properly communicate with the public. However, rather than a significant delay so there could be the public information campaign the Minister says she is so keen to have, on the basis set out by the BMA and the Royal College of GPs, what we have instead is a short pause. The Minister says she wants to listen and to build trust, so why on earth is this being snuck out during the summer recess? The reality is that the Government simply have not passed the test for informed consent. Will the Minister take this moment today to stop this process and commit to a proper engagement campaign, rather than running off during recess?

Jo Churchill: I really respect the hon. Gentleman, but nothing is being snuck out. We are not doing a data grab. I refer him to the answer I gave a few moments ago. It is important that we get this right. We have heard the concerns and will respond to them. We will take the appropriate amount of time—even if that means going beyond 1 September—to ensure that we have engaged properly.

Covid-19 Roadmap

Karl McCartney: What evidence he plans to use to inform the Government’s decision on whether to proceed with step 4 of the covid-19 road map on 19 July 2021.

James Sunderland: What evidence he plans to use to inform the Government’s decision on whether to proceed with step 4 of the covid-19 road map on 19 July 2021.

Sajid Javid: The Government have committed to taking a cautious approach to easing restrictions, guided by the data and not by dates. As I set out in my statement to Parliament yesterday, the decision to lift the remaining measures on 19 July and proceed to step 4 is based on an assessment of the four tests that were set out in the road map.

Karl McCartney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and welcome him to his new post.
For me and most of my constituents, 19 July cannot come early enough. It is refreshing to see the Secretary of State’s new approach to the wider issues of health provision, and the huge success of our vaccine roll-out has surely ensured that there should and will not be any more lockdowns or restrictions on our civil liberties. Will he assure me that no matter what vested interests have held sway in his Department and across Government in the past 18 months, he is clear that lockdowns and state intervention in the lives of our constituents have gone far enough and need to be curbed?

Sajid Javid: First, I am pleased that my hon. Friend agrees with the decision we have made to proceed with step 4. It sounds like he agrees with the central decision to move from a system of regulation to one of guidance. As he knows, the pandemic is not over, so we are rightly moving forward in a measured way. I am pleased that he agrees with the approach.

James Sunderland: I also welcome yesterday’s step 4 announcement. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Department should embrace a bit more risk by working with the Department for Transport to open up the international travel sector fully? Will he also ensure that GPs return to fully physical appointments and that we open up the full range of dental services?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, now that we have begun the process of opening up, more work is being done between my Department and the Department for Transport on international travel. The announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary last week will certainly help and be welcomed by the sector and travellers. On GP access, now that we have started to open up, working together with GPs we can see better direct access, and especially face-to-face access.

Pharmacies: Primary Care

Taiwo Owatemi: What steps he is taking to develop the role of pharmacies in primary care provision.

Jo Churchill: We are committed to the five-year community pharmacy contract and to enabling community pharmacy to deliver more clinical services as well as being the first port of call for minor illnesses. Pharmacists are highly skilled members of the primary care team. We are making good progress with referrals from NHS 111 and general practice, with discharge medicines services from hospitals, and with 96% of pharmacies providing lateral flow tests as well as delivering vaccines. We know that community pharmacies are keen to deliver more, and we should be thinking pharmacy first.

Taiwo Owatemi: I am sure the Minister agrees that pharmacies have gone above and beyond to deliver vital medicines and health advice to patients in their communities during the covid-19 pandemic and that their response underlines the huge potential to grow their already massive contribution to our nation’s health. Pharmacies have proven themselves to be a valuable member of the NHS family, so will she prioritise looking at the potential for pharmacies to provide even better primary care? Will she bring forward a plan to unleash their potential post pandemic?

Jo Churchill: I know that the hon. Lady speaks from experience, having been a clinical pharmacist before she came to this place. That potential needs unleashing. We are working across the profession to make sure that pharmacies are enabled to play a fuller part in the primary care family. We should think pharmacy first when we have minor ailments, and pharmacies should be enabled to do everything they can.

Health and Social Care: Collaboration

Ben Bradley: What steps his Department is taking to improve collaboration between health and social care.

Sajid Javid: We can no longer just think of a health system; we have to think about the health and social care system. We want people’s experiences of care to be seamless, which is why we have introduced the Health and Care Bill and will debate its Second Reading today.

Ben Bradley: In order to better integrate and support local services in Nottinghamshire, we would benefit greatly from working with a single integrated care footprint for a simpler and fairer service. A boundary congruous with our county boundary would allow us to offer more equitable care across the whole area. I understand that the decision on the integrated care system boundaries is imminent, so will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the potential benefits?

Sajid Javid: I am aware that several factors are helpful in fostering stronger partnerships between the NHS and local authorities, including alignment of boundaries. My hon. Friend will know that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), asked NHS England to conduct a boundary review for integrated care systems. That review, which is just being completed, will certainly look at and give advice on the best ICS footprint for alignment. No final decision has yet been made, but it is a priority for me. I would be happy to arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend with Ministers to discuss the matter further.

Covid-19: Child Health Services

Afzal Khan: What steps he plans to take in response to the findings of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on the effect of covid-19 on child health services, published on 14 June 2021.

Nadhim Zahawi: My apologies, Mr Speaker; I have lost my voice slightly. I was at Wembley on Sunday night and I have to say that those young lions outperformed. We are so proud of them, and I am certain that in 15 months’ time the nation will get behind them in Qatar and they will outperform again.
I thank the hon. Member for raising this really important question. We are committed to protecting vulnerable children and ensuring that every child receives the best start in life.

Afzal Khan: Children’s and young people’s health has been severely impacted by the pandemic, but it is the mental health impact of lockdown and school closures that is perhaps most concerning. Some 12% of in-patient paediatric beds are now occupied by those admitted because of severe mental health problems. That is double what it was in 2019. Does the Minister agree that children and young people have suffered greatly as a result of lockdown and that their health should now be prioritised in our recovery? If so, what steps will he take to put children at the heart of all policies and implement an overarching child health strategy?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. Our mental health recovery action plan will allow us to deliver additional support for 22,500 more children to have access to community health services—I know that the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health would say that community access is incredibly effective—and for 2,000 more children to access eating disorder services. It will also help to increase the coverage of mental health support teams in schools and colleges from 29 to 400 by April 2023. That makes it all the more important, as the Secretary of State has outlined, that we get to step 4: it is critical to delivering the recovery action plan.

Patient Transport: VAT

Ben Lake: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect on patients of the VAT treatment of patient transport service providers.

Nadhim Zahawi: While the Department of Health and Social Care takes a keen interest in any tax situation that may affect patients, any discussions surrounding the VAT treatment of patient transport services would need to be conducted with relevant officials in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Services for the transportation of the sick and injured are exempt from VAT.

Ben Lake: Non-emergency patient transport services provide vital support to those who have no other way of reaching hospital and medical appointments, in addition to those who require specialist transport. An inconsistency in the VAT treatment of providers currently means that some can claim VAT relief while others cannot, despite providing the same services in the same type of vehicles. Would the Minister consider meeting representatives of the sector to better understand the impact and, hopefully, find a way forward?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am very happy for myself and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to meet with others about that. Of course, I cannot comment on specific cases, and I would recommend that the services in question take up their concerns with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as well.

Quarantine-free Travel

Margaret Ferrier: What discussions he has had with his (a) European and (b) US counterparts on progressing (i) mutual quarantine-free travel for people who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 and (ii) international covid-19 vaccine pass recognition.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are working with the United States authorities, with the EU and with other international partners to ensure a safe return to international travel while managing public health risks. We support a global consistent minimum technical standard for covid status notification. Of course, the NHS app with the NHS covid pass is now accepted in 33 countries around the world.

Margaret Ferrier: The continued lack of recognition of vaccination status between the UK and the EU is putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage, according to the Association of British Travel Agents, especially when compared with the steps taken by the EU and the US. Both the US and the EU now have standardised digital ways to prove vaccination status, so will the Minister clarify why there is an ongoing delay in resolving this matter?

Nadhim Zahawi: The European Medicines Agency and our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, work incredibly closely together, and the EMA has authorised the vaccines that are approved by the MHRA. All vaccines that are authorised and deployed in the UK have been subjected to rigorous checks, including individual batch testing and site inspection. Our two regulators work incredibly closely together and I am confident that we will continue to do so and ensure that any issues are resolved as quickly as possible, working with the manufacturers as well.

New Hospitals: Funding Bids

James Wild: What progress his Department has made on selecting the eight new hospital programme schemes invited to bid for funding announced in the spending review 2020.

Edward Argar: On 2 October last year, we announced 40 new hospitals to be built by 2030 and committed to an open process to confirm a further eight new schemes. Taken together, those 48 schemes should represent the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. As my hon. Friend would expect, my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State is taking a close interest in the detail of this process, and I hope to be able to offer a further update on the selection process for the next eight hospitals very soon.

James Wild: Spending hundreds of millions of pounds patching up buildings long past their planned lifespan—such as the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, which currently has 200 safety props holding up the concrete roof—does not represent value for money. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the thousands of my constituents who in recent days have signed a petition for a new hospital to replace the QEH that the Government are looking seriously at the urgent and compelling case for a new fit-for-purpose hospital for staff, patients and visitors?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend’s constituents will know that, in him, they have a doughty champion of their cause and a strong advocate for his hospital. He and I have spoken on many occasions, and I recognise the challenges facing the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which he has been very clear about. The spending review 2020 included £4.2 billion this financial year for NHS operational capital investment to allow hospitals to maintain and refurbish their infrastructure, including a ring-fenced £110 million allocation for the most serious and immediate risk posed by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. My hon. Friend’s hospital has received just over £20 million of that funding to help to mitigate the most urgent RAAC risk, but he will also have heard me say, without prejudging any announcement my right hon. Friend will make about the criteria for the future eight, that safety will be one of the considerations.

Carers

Kerry McCarthy: What support his Department is providing to young carers during the covid-19 outbreak.

Clive Betts: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that unpaid carers can access the support they need to provide care to family members.

Helen Whately: We recognise how much carers do and the huge demands that caring places on them. We have made carers a priority group for covid-19 testing and vaccination, funded carers’ organisations and asked local authorities to meet their duties to identify and support carers. We have also provided guidance and funding through the £1.5 billion infection control fund to support the reopening of day services.

Kerry McCarthy: I have been contacted by a Megan, a young carer in my constituency, and I have been in correspondence with the Minister about the lack of guidance for young carers on the gov.uk website. We got the Government to remove an outdated linked to a Barnardo’s service that had closed at the end of March, but they have not replaced it with anything, which has left a vacuum in where young carers can look for advice and support. Can the Minister ensure that there is adequate, up-to-date information on the gov.uk website and that young carers have somewhere to turn to when they need help and support?

Helen Whately: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her correspondence on this. She makes a very important point and I will make sure of that.

Clive Betts: When the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government went to Germany about four years ago to look at its social care system, we saw that people entitled to public funding for social care could either pay the public authorities or care agencies to deliver it. Alternatively, for a slightly reduced amount of money, they could pay their family members, which meant that the person receiving care got the care they wanted, family members got paid for their efforts and the public purse actually saved some money. In reforming the social care system, would the Minister look at introducing elements of the German system into our system in this country?

Helen Whately: The Secretary of State has already said that we are working on our plans for social care reform, and we will be bringing them forward later this year. Of course, as part of those plans we are considering unpaid carers.

Topical Questions

Sally-Ann Hart: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: It is an honour to be here for my first oral questions as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and I thank the Prime Minister for bringing me back from furlough. I accepted this role because I  love my country and the NHS. I know that I join this Department at a pivotal time, and I have three pressing priorities for these critical few months. The first is getting us on the path out of this pandemic. The second is busting the backlog of non-covid services. The third is putting social care on a sustainable footing for the future. I want to draw on what I have learnt during this time of adversity and what we have all learnt together. I want to make this great nation a healthier and fairer place, and I am looking forward to working with all hon. Members in this House.

Lindsay Hoyle: You missed the fourth: a 24-hour accident and emergency unit for Chorley.

Sally-Ann Hart: East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust has the potential to get hundreds of millions in investment as part of the Government’s NHS estate infrastructure improvement plan. Will funding be allocated on a two to three-year basis, so that the NHS can better plan its funding and estates plans? Where funding has been indicated for a longer term, what plans are there to ensure that providers have sufficient resource in the shorter term to address immediate issues, or to support covid or recovery?

Sajid Javid: We have put more and more capital into the NHS. There are always representations from hon. Members, including you, Mr Speaker, for even more capital. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the importance of local healthcare systems, which will need more capital funding as we progress. She will know that we set out our capital plans for this financial year, 2021-22, but she is right to say that multi-year funding will mean that trusts can plan better, and that is a priority; we want the spending review to have more sight and better planning for capital.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Let us consider these words about mental health services:
“prior to 2017, no government invested in or prioritised MH services.”
Those are not my words but the words of the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries). Indeed, the new Secretary of State was the architect of these cuts, during his time as a Treasury Minister. The unparalleled devastation he left behind has been simply staggering, so does he agree with his Minister? Can he explain to us why 140,000 children were turned away from mental health services last year? Can he explain why a quarter of mental health beds have been cut since 2010? Is he ashamed of his track record?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that the NHS long-term plan that has been set out by this Government is committed to a transformation in mental health services and mental health spending; some £2.3 billion extra is being invested by 2023-24. In addition, she will be aware of the mental healthcare White Paper and the mental health recovery action plan. I hope these are all initiatives she will support.

Jeremy Hunt: May I welcome the Secretary of State to his place? I am sure he will do an excellent job. As he thinks about a 24-hour A&E for  Chorley, I hope he will also think about the urgent need for a cancer institute at the Royal Surrey County Hospital as only second on his list.
The Secretary of State will know that this morning the Health and Social Care Committee published a worrying report about the inhumane treatment given to 2,000 people with learning disabilities and autism in in-patient units, often because no community provision was available. When he brings forward his plans for social care, will he make sure that there is adequate funding for local authorities to give care to such people? Will he also make sure that care workers are always paid the minimum wage, including for the time taken to travel between appointments?

Sajid Javid: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments and the work that he and other Members do through the Select Committee to scrutinise the work of the Department. He just referred to some of that work, especially in his comments about learning disability and autism, which will remain a huge priority for the Government and certainly for my Department.
My right hon. Friend also rightly raised the issue of care workers and the minimum wage; it is worth pointing out that the Care Act 2014 requires local authorities, when they provide funding, not just to support the minimum wage but to take account of the costs that care workers might incur, such as travelling costs. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend and the members of his Select Committee.

Neil Coyle: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new role.
There are 1.5 million older people, disabled people and carers with unmet needs who are desperately waiting for care reform. What is the Secretary of State’s estimated start date for the implementation of the care package that the Government claimed was ready in their manifesto more than 20 months ago?

Sajid Javid: As the Government have said, we want to make sure that every person in this country has the dignity that they deserve in old age. We have recognised that the current system needs substantial reform. The process of reform has already begun in, for example, the Health and Care Bill that will have its Second Reading tomorrow, but we do need a new, sustainable way to fund care and we will come forward with the plans later this year.

Stephen Metcalfe: I know that many of my constituents will be pleased to hear that from 16 August we will end the requirement for people to self-isolate after possible exposure to the virus if they are fully vaccinated. I am sure we all agree that it is right to change the rules as the information changes; however, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House the rationale for making this change on 16 August rather than next Monday?

Sajid Javid: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good news that we can move away from restrictions and towards guidance. On the rationale for the decision he referred to, it is about vaccine effectiveness: we know that for those with both doses, vaccination is estimated  to be 78% to 80% effective against symptomatic covid-19. The introduction on 16 August of the changes to which my hon. Friend referred will mean that more people will have been vaccinated and will help to reduce severe illness.

Kate Osborne: Macmillan Cancer Support calculates that since March 2020, 37,000 fewer people than expected have started their first cancer treatment, including an estimated 66 people in my constituency of Jarrow who have not started their first treatment. Given that Macmillan estimates that the cancer system will need to work at 110% of capacity for the next 14 months to address the backlog, will the Secretary of State confirm whether the NHS is on schedule to tackle the backlog of cancer diagnosis, care and treatment by the current March 2022 deadline?

Sajid Javid: I want to reassure the hon. Lady—because this is such an important question for so many people across the country—that cancer remains a huge priority for this Government. She is right to refer to the work that Macmillan has done on this issue because, sadly, during the restrictions thousands of people have not come forward in the usual way and their cancer sadly remains undiagnosed. We urge anyone who feels that this is an issue for them: please, go to your GP—please come forward. That is one reason why we have launched the “Help Us, Help You” campaign. We have also provided additional funding for rapid diagnostic centres.

Chris Loder: Good afternoon from West Dorset, Mr Speaker. Constituents of mine have been in touch to say that they are struggling to get GP appointments either because there are not any, or because they are struggling with online booking and telephone consultations. That is resulting in people going to A&E, putting more pressures on their hospitals. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that constituents, especially older constituents, can access a GP face to face if they need to?

Sajid Javid: I think we would all agree in this House that GP practices have done a magnificent job in responding to the pandemic, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all GPs and their staff for the work that they have done and that they continue to do. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of face-to-face access. We can all understand why it changed during the pandemic, but as we open up, we can start to provide more of this, particularly for older people. Over the coming weeks and months, that will be a priority for my Department.

Taiwo Owatemi: Cancer Research UK estimates that, compared with pre-pandemic levels, nearly 45,000 fewer patients started cancer treatment in the UK in April 2020 to March 2021. It believes that this stems from there being less diagnosis during the pandemic. In England alone, 10,500 of those missing cases were breast cancer cases. What steps are the Government taking to reach out to those at risk of cancer who have not been diagnosed due to limited NHS access over the past 18 months?

Sajid Javid: As I said in response to an earlier question, this is a huge priority for the Government and, again, I am pleased that the hon. Lady has raised the issue. It is  an issue for her constituents and for constituents throughout the country. She referred to the research by Cancer Research UK. I am afraid that it is right: there are thousands of people who did not come forward. We can understand why, so let me say this again as it is so important: for anyone concerned, please do come  forward. We have provided additional funding—more than £1 billion—for more diagnostics and we will continue to provide additional support.

Dr Caroline Johnson: In vitro fertilisation treatment is a lifeline for many people desperate to conceive. My constituent Sarah Barker dreams of being a mother, but sadly suffers from an infertility problem. Sarah is being refused IVF treatment on the grounds that her partner already has a daughter from a previous relationship. Her petition to stop denying women fertility treatment for this reason has already reached almost 13,000 signatures. Does my hon. Friend agree that treatment for infertility should be available based on the medical needs of the women involved, and not affected by the partner that she has fallen in love with having a child from a previous relationship?

Helen Whately: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question and the situation of her constituent. What I can say is that we expect clinical commissioning groups to commission fertility services in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, so that there is equitable access across England. We are aware of some variations in access, and we are looking at how we can address that. Very specifically, CCGs should not be using criteria outside that NICE fertility guidance.

Helen Hayes: Many of my constituents who are extremely clinically vulnerable due to conditions such as blood cancer are terrified that, from 19 July, the Government are effectively abdicating responsibility for keeping them safe in public. There is evidence that more than two thirds of people do not understand that vaccines are not always effective for people who are immuno-compromised or the importance of wearing a mask to protect others and to alleviate anxiety. Can the Secretary of State not see why it would send a much clearer message to keep masks on public transport mandatory, rather than leaving the safety of clinically vulnerable residents to chance?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. As she has rightly explained, there will be a number of people who, understandably, will be concerned about the move away from regulations to guidance. None the less, there must come a point when we start to remove the restrictions slowly, in a measured way, as we are doing—not least because we want to be able to start dealing much more with all the non-covid health problems that have been created as well. We have provided very clear guidance on masks and it was published yesterday. I hope that the hon. Lady can share that with people who are concerned.

Paul Holmes: We know that there have been hidden costs to the restrictions that are in place to protect us, including worsening mental  health and the risk of domestic violence. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the need to balance those risks with the reduced threat posed by the virus is a key part of the Government’s decision to lift restrictions?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I can confirm that. Removing restrictions is not without risk—I accept that—but keeping restrictions is not without cost. As my hon. Friend points out, the restrictions have led to increased domestic violence, child abuse, mental health issues and undiagnosed cancer, which we have heard about today, to name but a few. As we start lifting restrictions, that means that we can better deal with all these major non-covid health problems.

Lindsay Hoyle: Wendy Chamberlain is not here, so I call Jason McCartney.

Jason McCartney: I have been contacted by a number of my Colne Valley constituents who have had operations and medical procedures cancelled or postponed at short notice. With coronavirus cases still on the rise, what is the strategy to tackle the backlog in operations and medical procedures?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend rightly raises an issue that I know will be a concern for constituents of all Members of this House. The backlog of treatment—the waiting list—is over 5 million. However, we are making rapid progress with that, and so is the NHS. We are looking at a variety of ways to do that—not just providing the funding needed to do it, but through innovation, accelerator hubs and diagnostic hubs, all designed to get the waiting list down and to get people the treatment they need when they need it. I would be very happy to discuss the specifics of my hon. Friend’s local situation with him outside this place.

Lindsay Hoyle: Wendy Chamberlain was online, so let us go to Wendy. Welcome, Wendy.

Wendy Chamberlain: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. When I return to my constituency of North East Fife, I will cross into Scotland, where the mandating of face masks is likely to continue. Is it the Government’s expectation that  passengers will wear a mask only when they cross into Scotland—or, indeed, Wales? What consultation has happened with the Home Office in relation to guidance to the British Transport police? Do the Government accept that a lack of a four-nations approach to such measures is not helpful?

Sajid Javid: Throughout the pandemic, my predecessor and other Ministers have rightly been working with the devolved Administrations, and of course that work continues; it will remain a priority. I myself have already started weekly meetings with all my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We discuss a number of issues and keep each other informed, but we also respect that in certain areas, in dealing with this pandemic, we may take a different course.

Rushanara Ali: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. Cases of covid rose by 30% last week compared with the previous week, and on 10 July we saw over 35,000 new cases, the highest since 22 January. By mid-August we could see 1,000 people a day being hospitalised, and up to 200 people a day could die, despite the excellent vaccination programmes. Given that the Secretary of State now considers it irresponsible not to wear masks, is it not equally irresponsible for the Government not to require people to continue to wear masks rather than leaving it as an option?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady understandably talks about the link between case numbers and hospitalisation. She will know that the last time we saw cases at 30,000 and above on a daily basis, we saw a lot more hospitalisations. The reason for the difference now is the vaccine wall of defence. Masks do have an important role to play, but we think that that role can be played by moving from regulation to guidance.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Points of Order

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee on Home Affairs had been seeking to visit Napier barracks and Tug Haven reception centre for asylum seekers. We approached the Home Office four weeks ago. We had planned to visit today, but we have not received any response from the Home Office, and as a result we are here, not there. Given the importance of this, given the court judgments there have been about Napier barracks, and given our Committee’s ongoing inquiry into this matter, the whole Committee is very concerned about the lack of response and our inability to facilitate this visit. Please can you advise me and the Committee on the responsibilities of the Home Office to work with the Committee to facilitate scrutiny and visits such as these, and on what more we should do to try to get such a visit before the summer recess?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Member and to her Committee colleague, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who I think also has a point of order. I will take that as well, and then I will respond.

Tim Loughton: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful, because I think the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee slightly underplays the urgency of this matter. For the past month, we have been asking to visit Napier. We have been fobbed off numerous times, and I have to say that this is not an isolated incident: increasingly, it is   becoming difficult to get responses from Home Office officials and Ministers, never mind to get them in front of us here in a timely fashion.
This particular visit is directly related to some evidence that was given to us by Ministers, which has now turned out to be highly questionable, and which impacts on reviews and reports that we are currently preparing. We wanted very urgently to visit Napier barracks, but that probably cannot now happen before the summer recess. How on earth can we get responses from the Home Office in a timely fashion without Committee members and officials wasting time in constantly chasing them, or having to raise it on the Floor of the House, as the Chair of the Select Committee and others have done on countless occasions?

Lindsay Hoyle: I have repeatedly stressed the importance of Select Committees and the essential scrutiny work that they undertake. I am very happy to do so again. For the Committees’ work to be effective, Departments need to be constructive and helpful when Committees make responsible and reasonable requests, whether they are about finding time for Ministers and officials to give evidence or, in this case, facilitating visits. It is simply unacceptable that the Committee has not had a response to the request made four weeks ago about a visit. That is discourteous to the Committee and, therefore, the House. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard this exchange. I hope the matter can now be resolved speedily. This is coming not from one side, but from both sides of the House. Select Committees are important for scrutinising the Government’s business. It is important for the Government to recognise that. The sooner this can be fixed, the better; the happier I will be, and so will the House.

Electric Vehicle Charging Points  (New Buildings)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Felicity Buchan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about electric vehicle charging points in new buildings; and for connected purposes.
The UK is one of the leaders—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. In fairness to hon. Members who are speaking, I point out that the cameras pick up Members who are going to their seats and who block the view of the Member speaking. I know that it is important to get people into the Chamber, but this is a ten-minute rule Bill, and there is plenty of time for people to come in. Think of others, please.

Felicity Buchan: The UK is one of the leaders in combating climate change and I am rightly proud of that record. Since 1990, the UK has decarbonised at the fastest rate of any G20 country and of course, we were the first to legislate for net zero by 2050. Last December, we went one step further and said that we would have an interim target of a 68% reduction by 2030. That is rightly an ambitious target and I am glad about that. However, if we are to achieve it, we need to focus on our transport sector.
Transport is the biggest emitter of carbon in the entire country. Last year, it accounted for 29.8% of total emissions. If we look forward to 2035, that is likely to increase as a percentage share. Cars account for 55% of those emissions. If we add in light vans, that increases to almost two thirds. Hence we can see how vital it is that we transition to electric vehicles.
I am glad that the Government have brought forward to 2030 the date when we ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. That is a huge achievement. However, it is important that we not only set targets but put in place concrete steps to achieve them. That is why I am introducing this ten-minute rule Bill today. It will mandate that all new homes and office buildings should have electric vehicle charging points.
I am delighted that the Bill has the support of two Opposition Members—one from the Scottish National party and one from the Democratic Unionist party—and the support of other colleagues on the Government Benches whom I could not list in the list of sponsors.
The Government did undertake a consultation in 2019 on mandating electric vehicle charging points in new buildings, but we have not yet seen legislation as a result. However, I hope that this Bill is very timely because we should imminently have both the transport decarbonisation plan and the infrastructure strategy plan. I do not want to be too forward, but it would be good to see the Government adopting the thread of the Bill.
Let me set out why I think this is so critically important. Constituents say that their one reservation about buying electric vehicles is concern about the reliability of the infrastructure and the charging network. Because of their concerns about that reliability, they become concerned about range—so-called range anxiety. By mandating that all new-build offices and homes have these charging  points, we will be able to address a lot of these concerns. Residential users will know that they can charge their cars overnight, and people, like many in my constituency, who only have on-street parking will have confidence that they can charge their cars at their offices. It will also, importantly, relieve some of the pressure on on-street parking and on the general grid of the charging network.
The Bill is very important from a safety perspective. It is clearly better that people charge their cars at home with proper chargers rather than some of the ad hoc charging methods that we see at the moment, such as extension leads dangling through windows going towards on-street parking. I am glad to say that the Bill has the support of Electrical Safety First. It is way cheaper to install electric charging points at the point of construction rather than retrofitting. The latest data shows that to retrofit an electric vehicle charging point costs £2,040 but to install it from new costs only £976. It is also very important for the uptake of electric vehicles in rural communities. At the moment, inner cities, like my own City of London, do have good uptake, but all new-builds having these charging points will definitely help in rural communities, where 68% of journeys are done by car.
The Bill is also important because it forces developers to buy into net zero. That means that this is in everyone’s mind, because whenever people are in their house or in their office and see an electric vehicle charging point, they realise that the new norm is electric vehicles—because we do need to make it the new norm.
While this Bill does not seek to address all the issues with electric vehicles, we clearly do need a comprehensive and strategic national grid of charging points. We also need to focus on the consumer experience in terms of interoperability. This Bill will go a small way to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, which is critical to meeting our target for net zero and making the world a better place.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Felicity Buchan, Alan Brown, Tracey Crouch, Philip Dunne, Simon Fell, Damian Green, Mrs Pauline Latham, Tim Loughton, Cherilyn Mackrory, Selaine Saxby, Andrew Selous and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Felicity Buchan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October and to be printed (Bill 146).

Lindsay Hoyle: I suspend the House for one minute while necessary arrangements are made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Treasury Update on International Aid not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; proceedings relating to the motion on Treasury Update on International Aid may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)

International Aid: Treasury Update

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the next item of business, I wish to remind the House that, on 7 June, I said:
“the House has not…had an opportunity for a decisive vote on maintaining the UK’s commitment to the statutory target of 0.7%. I expect the Government to find a way to have this important matter debated and to allow the House formally to take an effective decision.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 667.]
The Government have now come forward with today’s motion and the written ministerial statements to which it relates.
The motion before us may not be the preferred way of dealing with the issue for some hon. and right hon. Members, in that the formal procedural consequences of voting against the motion are limited and the motion itself is not amendable. However, it facilitates a dedicated debate on the subject, and the written ministerial statement commits the Government very clearly to a certain course of action in the event of today’s motion being negatived. The Government have assured me that they will not resile from such a commitment, which represents a very significant step forward in the House’s ability to scrutinise the Government’s policy on this important matter.
I personally would like to thank the Government Front Bench for enabling this debate to take place, and I thank them for respecting this House.

Boris Johnson: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Written Ministerial Statement relating to Treasury Update on International Aid, which was made to the House on Monday 12 July.
I believe that, on this vital subject, there is common ground between the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the sense that we believe in the power of aid to transform millions of lives. That is why we continue to agree that the UK should dedicate 0.7% of our gross national income to official development assistance.
This is not an argument about principle. The only question is when we return to 0.7%. My purpose today is to describe how we propose to achieve this shared goal in an affordable way.
Here we must face the harsh fact that the world is now enduring a catastrophe of a kind that happens only once a century. This pandemic has cast our country into its deepest recession on record, paralysing our national life, threatening the survival of entire sectors of the economy and causing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to find over £407 billion to safeguard jobs and livelihoods and to support businesses and public services across the United Kingdom. He has managed that task with consummate skill and ingenuity, but everyone will accept that, when we are suddenly compelled to spend £407 billion on sheltering our people from an economic hurricane never experienced in living memory, there must inevitably be consequences for other areas of public spending.
Last year, under the pressure of the emergency, our borrowing increased fivefold to almost £300 billion—more than 14% of GDP, the highest since the second world war. This year, our national debt is climbing towards 100% of GDP, the highest for nearly six decades. The House knows that the Government have been compelled  to take wrenching decisions, and the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 expressly provides that fiscal circumstances can allow departure from the 0.7% target.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor for their constructive engagement with those of us who have been profoundly concerned about our departure from the aid target. Will he reconfirm to me and to the House that this is not a fiscal trap, and that the mechanism set out in a written ministerial statement is a genuine and full-hearted attempt to return to our commitment of 0.7% at the very earliest economically sustainable opportunity?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on and expertise in this matter. I know how deeply he cares about this, in common with many other Members across the House, and I can indeed give him that confirmation. The decision that we made was temporary, to reduce our aid budget to 0.5% of national income.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister give way?

Boris Johnson: With great respect, if the House will allow me, I will make as much progress as I can in this speech, and then allow the, I think, 77 others who wish to contribute to have their say, so I will not take any more interventions.
In the teeth of this crisis, amid all the other calls on our resources, we can take pride in the fact that the UK will still invest at least £10 billion in aid this year—more, as a share of our GDP, than Canada, Japan, Italy and the United States. It would be a travesty if hon. Members were to give the impression that the UK is somehow retreating from the field of international development or lacking in global solidarity. As I speak, this country is playing a vital role in the biggest and fastest global vaccination programme in history. We helped to create COVAX, the coalition to vaccinate the developing world, and we have invested over half a billion pounds in this crucial effort, which has so far distributed more than 100 million doses to 135 countries.
The Government’s agreement with Oxford University and AstraZeneca succeeded in producing the world’s most popular vaccine, with over 500 million doses released to the world, mainly to low and middle-income countries, saving lives every hour of every day. The UK’s expertise and resources have been central to the global response to the emergency, discovering both the vaccine and the first life-saving treatment for covid. We have secured agreement from our friends in the G7 to provide a billion vaccines to protect the world by the end of next year, and 100 million will come from the UK. We are the third biggest sovereign donor to the World Health Organisation, and the top donor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which vaccinates children against killer diseases.
We are devoting £11.6 billion, double our previous commitment, to helping developing countries to deal with climate change, including by protecting their forests and introducing green energy. I can tell the House that this vital investment will be protected.
When it comes to addressing one of the world’s gravest injustices—the tragedy that millions of girls are denied the chance to go to school—the UK has pledged more than any other country, £430 million, to the Global Partnership for Education, in addition to the £400 million that we will spend on girls’ education this year.
Later this month, I will co-host a summit of the partnership in London with President Kenyatta of Kenya. Wherever civil wars are displacing millions or threatening to inflict famine in Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia or elsewhere, the UK is responding with over £900 million of help this year, making our country the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor in the world. It bears repeating that we are doing this in the midst of a terrible crisis, when our public finances are under greater strain than ever before in peacetime history and every pound we spend in aid has to be borrowed. It represents not our money, but money we are taking from future generations.
Last year, we dissolved the old divide between aid and diplomacy that once ran through the entire Whitehall machine, by creating the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In doing so, my objective was to ensure that every diplomat in our service was actuated by the mission and vision of our finest development officials, and that our aid was better in tune with our national values and our desire to be a force for good in the world. So I can assure any hon. Member who wishes to make the case for aid that they are, when it comes to me or to anyone in the Government, preaching to the converted. We shall act on that conviction by returning to 0.7% as soon as two vital tests have been satisfied. The first is that the UK is no longer borrowing to cover current or day-to-day expenditure. The second is that public debt, excluding the Bank of England, is falling as a share of GDP.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister give way?

Boris Johnson: I am just coming to the end. The moment the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show that both of those conditions will sustainably be met, from the point at which they are met we will willingly restore our aid budget to 0.7%.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Prime Minister give way?

Boris Johnson: Plenty of people want to speak in this debate. The Government will of course review the situation every year and place a statement before this House in accordance with the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. But as we conduct that annual review, we will fervently wish to find that our conditions have been satisfied. This is one debate where the Government and hon. Members from across the House share the same objective—

Yvette Cooper: Will the Prime Minister give way?

Boris Johnson: I am sure the right hon. Lady will have plenty of time later on.
As I was saying, we share the same objective and the same fundamental convictions. We all believe in the principle that aid can transform lives, and by voting for   this motion, hon. Members will provide certainty for our aid budget and an affordable path back to 0.7%, while also allowing for investment in other priorities, including the NHS, schools and the police. As soon as circumstances allow and the tests are met, we will return to the target that unites us, and I commend this motion to the House.

Keir Starmer: I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members from across the House for ensuring that this debate took place today. In particular, I thank the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I think they are the “lefty” propagandists that the Prime Minister was talking about a couple of weeks ago. I have to say that if the Prime Minister had confidence in the arguments he is making to this House, he would have given way to them a moment ago so that his arguments could be tested. He does not have confidence in them, otherwise he would have done so—that is obvious already. However, we do welcome the chance to debate this motion.
The motion is broad and, if I may say so, from this Prime Minister it is typically slippery. The House should have had the opportunity for a straight up/down vote on whether to approve or reject the Government’s cut to overseas aid to 0.5%. This motion does not do that. But the Chancellor’s written ministerial statement is clear: if the motion is carried, the cut in overseas aid to 0.5% will effectively carry on indefinitely. I will expand on that point in just a moment—[Interruption.] I will expand on that point and take interventions on it.

Mark Harper: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I am going to develop that argument. When I get to it, I will give way so that that argument can be tested, in the usual way. But if the motion is rejected,
“the Government would consequently return to spending 0.7% of GNI on international aid in the next calendar year”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 4WS.]
Let me be clear: Labour will vote to reject this motion tonight and to return overseas aid to 0.7% of GNI.

Mark Harper: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I am going to summarise my argument—[Interruption.] I am going make my argument, and when I get to the relevant part, I will take interventions.
The case that we make is this: first, that the cut is wrong, because investing 0.7% on international aid is in Britain’s national interest; secondly, because the economic criteria set out by the Chancellor would lead to an indefinite cut that is likely to last beyond this Parliament; and, thirdly, because it matters that this House keeps its word to the voters who elected us. Every Member here—every Member here—was elected on a manifesto to retain the 0.7% target, and it matters that we keep our promises to the world’s poorest, particularly at such a time of global uncertainty.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I agree with him about keeping promises, and Conservative Members  were also elected to keep fiscal promises to reduce our debt and not to borrow for day-to-day spending. I hope in his remarks he will set out, given that he is not going to support this motion, which areas of spending he is going to cut to pay for it or which taxes he is going to raise. If he does not do either of those things, then I am afraid his promises and his vote today are hollow, and no one will believe him.

Keir Starmer: I have to say that it is a bit rich from someone who may break the manifesto commitment to say that the vote today and the words today are hollow, but just to take that straight on, it is a false economy, I am afraid. Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a House of Commons speech, not a partisan speech. Can I ask him what I would have asked the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister had given way? First, will he confirm that the cut we are discussing today is 1% of the borrowing the Prime Minister described that he quite rightly sanctioned last year? Secondly, will he underline the fact that this was an all-party promise made at the general election by every single one of us, and we really should not break our promises to the poorest in this terrible way?

Keir Starmer: Yes and yes. It was not ambivalent in the manifestos and it was not conditional; it was clear.
On the first part of the argument—the national interest—British aid saves lives, it builds a more secure world, and it promotes democracy and British soft power. For the last 20 years, that has been the political consensus across this House. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown first set the goal of the UK reaching the 0.7% target—[Interruption.] I am making a speech to the House and for the House. David Cameron and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead made it a reality, and we acknowledge that in the right way. It has been supported—[Interruption.] The chuntering is all very well, but this has been a cross-party position for 20 years, and successive Prime Ministers have kept to the commitment. Every other living Prime Minister thinks this is wrong; there is only one Prime Minister who is prepared to do this, and he is sitting there, on the Front Bench. I acknowledge what those on the Benches opposite did in relation to this—the previous Prime Minister is sitting opposite. I am openly acknowledging that, and it has been supported by all parties, and rightly so. As the sixth richest country in the world, Britain has a moral obligation to help the world’s poorest, and our aid budget has done that with fantastic results.

Andrea Leadsom: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I will in a moment.
This has been providing education for women and girls; fighting poverty; providing sanitation, healthcare and vaccines; building resilience and infrastructure; and doing incredible post-conflict and reconstruction work, where I think Britain does a better job than anyone else, so it has real results. Let us be clear what these cuts  would mean: 1 million girls losing out on schooling; nearly 3 million women and children going without life-saving nutrition; 5.6 million children left unvaccinated; an estimated 100,000 deaths worldwide. [Interruption] The Prime Minister says “Rubbish”; that is the human toll of the choices the Government are making, and it is not rubbish.

Edward Leigh: The case being made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Prime Minister is making a promise he will not keep, but what did Tony Blair and Gordon Brown do? They made a promise but they never, ever spent 0.7% of GDP on aid, and therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech lacks all moral force.

Keir Starmer: They more than doubled it; they set the goal, and then successive Prime Ministers implemented that goal. That is such a weak argument—11 years into this Government that is such a weak argument. When I was Director of Public Prosecutions, which has a five-year term, the very idea that I could turn around four or five years into the role and say it was somebody else’s fault five, 10, 15, 20 years ago—I have always found such an argument particularly weak. This is such a bad argument but it is used all the time. They have been in power for 11 years; either take responsibility for what you are doing or give up.
Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK. In Afghanistan aid has supported improvements in security, in governance, in economic development and in rights for women and girls, yet, despite all the challenges that that country now faces and the security and terrorist threats that that poses to the UK—we know about those, and the previous Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead knows about them—UK aid to Afghanistan is being cut from £192.3 million to £38.2 million. That is Afghanistan. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister chunters, but they are actually the Government figures. In Yemen, where there is the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world, UK aid has been cut by nearly 60%; in Syria, the Government are slashing aid by around 50%; and for the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh there is a cut of 42%. All of those decisions will create more refugees, more instability and more people having to flee their homes.

Chris Matheson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the words of General James Mattis, the former United States Defence Secretary? When President Trump proposed cutting overseas aid, General Mattis said, “Fine, cut it, but you will have to give me, the Defence Secretary, more money to buy more bullets.”

Keir Starmer: I am aware of that, and it exposes the false economy argument in the Prime Minister’s case.
This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill. At a time when Britain will host COP26 and has hosted the G7 we should be using every means at our disposal to create a fairer and safer world, but we are the only G7 country that is cutting our aid budget—the only G7 country. That is not the vision of global Britain   that those of us on the Labour Benches want to see, and I do not think it is the vision of global Britain that many on the Benches opposite want to see either.

Andrea Leadsom: All of us in this House long to see our aid commitments re-established at 0.7% of national income, but the Leader of the Opposition will nevertheless appreciate that we continue to be one of the most generous foreign aid donors. He is making a good point about the 0.7%, but can he explain why, in all the Labour years of Labour Government, they averaged 0.36% of national income on overseas aid?

Keir Starmer: They doubled it, actually.
Let me turn to my second point, which has already been debated: the economic argument behind the Government’s position. The Prime Minister and Chancellor say that these cuts are unavoidable because of the pandemic and the economic consequences we now find ourselves in, but the whole point of the 0.7% target is that it is relative to the UK’s economic success or challenges: it rises when we grow and falls when we experience economic shock like the pandemic. Nobody in this House is arguing for overseas aid to be maintained at the pre-pandemic level during the downturn in strict terms. We all recognise that a contracting economy means a relative contraction in our aid budget, but the Chancellor and Prime Minister are asking the House to agree to go beyond that, to impose a new target of 0.5% and to create entirely new criteria for ever returning to 0.7%. In effect, the Chancellor is proposing a double lock against reverting to 0.7%. The written ministerial statement makes it clear that Britain will go back to 0.7% only when public debt is falling as a percentage of GDP and there is a “current budget surplus”.

Simon Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

Keir Starmer: Let me make this point, and the Prime Minister can intervene if he wants. On the former point, the Office for Budget Responsibility does not predict public debt falling as a percentage of GDP until 2024 or 2025 at the earliest. If the Prime Minister wants to intervene, I am ready. That would mean returning to 0.7% will not happen in any year in this Parliament. I am clear about that. Does anyone want to intervene? That is the OBR’s prediction.

Anthony Mangnall: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps he can help in ascertaining when those targets would have been met in the past 20 years.

Keir Starmer: Well, that is a very good point. I think it is once in 20 years. However, there are two points here and, if there is a contrary argument, the Prime Minister can make it. On the first point, the OBR does not predict a fall in debt as a percentage of GDP until 2024 to 2025. Therefore, anybody voting tonight who is pretending to themselves that the cut is temporary and will be changed in a year or two is not looking at the facts. If anybody wants to say they have better statistics and the OBR has got it completely wrong, please do so—that includes the Prime Minister.
On the second point, the OBR does not forecast a current surplus for its entire forecast period. In fact, there is no expected timeline for that criterion to be met at all. What the Chancellor is setting out is not a temporary cut in overseas aid; it is an indefinite cut. Let me remind the House that only, I think, five times in the past 30 years has a current budget surplus been run—four of them, I might add, were under a Labour Government and one under the Conservatives—so the chances of those criteria being met under a Conservative Chancellor are remote at best. All the more so, because the statement creates an artificial £4.3 billion fiscal penalty for any Chancellor who seeks to rebalance the Budget. So this is an indefinite cut—it is not going to be reversed next year or the year after—and, however much the Prime Minister shakes his head, there is no contrary argument.
This is not just about economic necessity; a political choice is being made. Not only is it against our national interest but it further erodes trust in our politics. That brings me to my third point: trust. There is now a central divide in British politics and across the world between those who value truth, integrity and honesty and those who bask in breaking them. We were all elected on manifestos that committed to the 0.7% target. I am proud to have stood on that commitment and I know that many hon. Members across the House are as well.

Simon Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

Keir Starmer: I will in just a moment. Let me quote page 53 of the Conservative manifesto, which says:
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.
Do not shake your head, Prime Minister—it is there in black and white. As Conservative Members have said, that is not equivocal or conditional. It was a clear promise to voters and it should be honoured. If it is not, where does that leave us? There are already countless examples of the Prime Minister breaking his promises, such as: no hard border in the Irish Sea; no cuts to our armed forces; and an already-prepared plan for social care—the list is endless. That matters. It matters to the British people that they can trust a Prime Minister to honour a clear commitment. It matters to our reputation around the globe that the word of the British Government will hold in good times and bad.
Today, the House has the chance to stand up for a better kind of politics for the national interest, to do what we know is right and to honour our commitments to the world’s poorest. When the Division is called, Labour MPs will do so, and I am sure that others on the Conservative Benches will do so. I urge all Members to do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I just remind all Members that there is a three-minute limit.

Theresa May: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Government for enabling this debate today.
I stood on a manifesto commitment to maintain international aid funding at 0.7% of gross national income—and not just that, because we said:
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.
Early last year, the pandemic hit. It had an immediate negative effect on the economy, yet in September 2020, when that effect on the economy had been seen, when public spending was increasing and when the Government were already borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds, they confirmed in their response to the fourth report of the International Development Committee that they would honour that manifesto commitment, saying:
“a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department”—
the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—
“will honour its responsibilities.”
The Government went on to say that investing that 0.7% was at the heart of the vision of the Government’s integrated review for the UK
“as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation.”
Where is that vision now, as the Government turn their back on some of the poorest in the world?
With GNI falling, our funding for aid was falling in any case. To reduce it from 0.7% to 0.5% is a double blow. This is not about palaces for dictators and vanity projects; it is about what cuts to funding mean: fewer girls will be educated, more girls and boys will become slaves, more children will go hungry and more of the poorest people in the world will die.
The Government have promised what they see as a compromise, and I am grateful to the Chancellor for speaking to me last night. I asked how long it would take before the tests are met and we return to 0.7%. I was told, “Four to five years, but it could be sooner, because the economy is recovering so well.” If the motion is defeated tonight, it will be 0.7% from January next year. The Government appear to be saying to us, “We cannot afford 0.7% next year because the economy is doing so badly, but actually the economy is doing so well that we could very well be able to restore 0.7% very soon”. The Government cannot have it both ways.
I certainly doubt whether the tests will ever be met in five years’ time. Meeting them depends not only on a significant recovery in the economy—the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting trend growth of less than 2%—but on the Government reining in their inclination to continue to increase public spending. We are told that there will be dire consequences for tax and public spending if this motion is defeated. We have borrowed £400 billion—where are the dire warnings about that? It seems that £4 billion is really bad news; £400 billion—who cares?
Finally, as has been pointed out, the two tests have only been met in one calendar year in the past 20 years. I have been in this House for nearly a quarter of a century. During that time, I have never voted against a three-line Whip from my party. As Prime Minister, I suffered at the hands of rebels. I know what it is like to see party colleagues voting against their Government. We made a promise to the poorest people in the world. The Government have broken that promise. This motion means that promise may be broken for years to come. With deep regret, I will vote against the motion today.

Chris Law: There is not a single nation on the planet that has escaped the devastation of this global pandemic, and there is not a single person who is pretending that the challenge of recovery from  covid is easy. We also know that it has been the poorest of our own society who have been hit the hardest over the past 18 months. Tragically, that has been replicated across the globe. Inequality has widened. Millions have been pushed into poverty. Development gains have been reversed, and it is the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies who are dying.
We therefore need a global recovery that builds forward better, creates a fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable world and ultimately honours the millions who have lost or are losing their lives to this terrible pandemic. In order to do that, the wealthiest countries in the world, of which the UK is one, must step up to tackle the great challenges facing humanity, not step away. However, it is with the deepest regret that this UK Government’s callous cut to the aid budget is not only jeopardising those efforts, but will mean that the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world will pay the ultimate price. Make no mistake: these cuts will cost lives.
The UK Government are making a desperate effort to stress the economic necessity of cutting aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. They are desperate to talk about fiscal tests, borrowing levels and tax receipts, but they do not want to address the questions that put them to shame. How many children will go without an education? How many girls will be forced into unwanted marriages and teenage pregnancies? Ultimately, how many individuals will die needlessly because of this Government’s decision? Those are questions that the Government have run away from, just as they have run away from this debate and this vote for the past six months.
It should simply never have come to this. This Parliament should have had a vote on the aid cut before it was implemented, but instead the Government pressed ahead with international austerity on the backs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Without consultation with those most in need, without any impact assessment and without any debate in this Parliament, the Government made their decision based on a Treasury spreadsheet. With a stroke of a pen, they signed the death sentence—a policy that will lead to 1 million children’s excess deaths.
Those who are considering voting in favour of the motion should reflect on these questions. Are they building forward and leaving no one behind in a global strategy against covid? Are they honouring the millions who are losing their lives and the many more millions who will lose their livelihoods as a result of the pandemic? Are they happy to sign that death sentence?
Let us look at a few examples of the life-saving aid programmes that have been curtailed or cancelled, with horrifying consequences right now. Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, where 20 million people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Many of them face famine after years of war. Despite that, the UK Government have slashed their humanitarian funding to the country by more than 60%. The UN Secretary-General put it bluntly:
“Millions of Yemeni children, women and men desperately need aid to live. Cutting aid is a death sentence.”
Given that 400,000 children under five might starve to death in Yemen alone this year, how on earth can this Government defend themselves?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about Yemen, although it should be acknowledged that the  UK gave aid to Yemen well in excess of what we had budgeted for, and that we have a very generous record. Does he agree that it is not only a question of emergency aid? If we are to find peace in that country, we will need to give aid for its reconstruction to keep it out of civil war and famine again, so it is entirely the wrong time not to step up with the money necessary for a lasting peace.

Chris Law: I agree with every point that the hon. Member makes. It is important for our national security and in our national interest to be stepping up at this point, not stepping away.
The UK Government’s funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which provides contraceptives and reproductive health supplies globally, is being cut by a staggering 85%. Yes, Mr Speaker, you heard that correctly: 85%. The UNFPA has stated:
“These cuts will be devastating for women and girls and their families across the world.”
The money being withheld by this Government would have helped to prevent a quarter of a million child and maternal deaths, nearly 15 million unintended pregnancies and more than 4 million unsafe abortions.
A third example, which just shows how ridiculous the cuts are, is that tens of thousands of people are likely to die needlessly because nearly 300 million doses of medicine for the treatment of neglected diseases in Africa are at risk of expiring following the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s announcement that it is almost entirely withdrawing its allocated funding. So far, the UK Government have not confirmed that the expiring medicines will be distributed urgently rather than destroyed. What an utter folly—an absence of simple human decency. Hon. Members voting on the motion must tell their constituents that, because these are the simple facts.
Those are just three examples that cover women’s reproductive rights, disease prevention and urgent humanitarian assistance, but cuts are happening across the board. Programmes to eradicate poverty, to prevent conflict or even to combat climate change—in the year that we will host COP26 in Glasgow—are all suffering a similar fate. Each budget reduced, each project scaled back and each programme cancelled results in a loss of hard-fought progress, a loss of expertise and, fundamentally, a loss of trust. This so-called temporary measure will inflict long-term damage and long-term pain and suffering, which is why the cut must be urgently reversed. The Government are pretending that there is no other option than to cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, but we know that that is not the case. In fact, it is blatantly not the case.
It must have been a complete humiliation for the UK Government when they hosted the G7 summit in Cornwall last month, which should have been a moment of pride in demonstrating our shared collective values. This House may ask why. It is because every other G7 country has recognised the necessity of helping those in urgent need at this time of unprecedented volatility and increased aid spending.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but would he acknowledge that those countries may have raised spending from a much lower level and that we shall still be the third highest in the G7?

Chris Law: I thank the hon. Member for his comments. This is not a question of pride that we are still giving very generously—that we will be the third most generous. We are the sixth wealthiest nation. We keep talking about global Britain, but we are actually a shrinking Britain with these cuts. We are actually losing our soft power. You are going against national security. You are going against our collective national interest right across this House, with every party that is here today.
Sadly, because of these brutal cuts by the UK Government, the massive increase in spending—to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point— by Germany was effectively cancelled out. Within these islands, I should also add, the Scottish Government have increased their international aid budget by 50%. That puts this House, frankly, at shame with this motion.
It is simply a matter of political priorities, and this Chancellor and this Prime Minister have shown where their priorities lie. Let us not kid ourselves that this is being spent on health, welfare and education at home because it clearly is not. The Chancellor chose to take money away from preventing famine and malnutrition, conflict prevention, and protecting our planet and marginalised communities from the devastating effects of climate change. Instead—I am glad to see the Chancellor in his place—he chose to spend the money on enhanced cyberweapons, AI-enabled drones and, the biggest folly of all, increased stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, after he delivered a windfall for the defence budget—in the very same month the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was announced.
If that is not an act of national shame, let us look at the icing on the cake. The Prime Minister, who is no longer in his place—he should be embarrassed when I read this—believes that spending upwards of £200 million on a shiny brand new royal yacht, Britannia 2.0, is more important than using lifesaving aid to deliver a more just, peaceful and secure world. That is despite the fact of the royal family’s complete displeasure. Mr Speaker, how un-British could that be?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Normally, we do not bring the royal family into our debates. They are outside our debates. Those are the rules of the House.

Chris Law: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I raised it only because it is on the record elsewhere.
Even every former living Prime Minister has opposed this cut and continues to do so. The simple fact is that aid spending has always been in the Prime Minister’s sights, ever since he described it as
“spending huge sums of British taxpayers’ money as though we were some independent Scandinavian NGO”
and
“shovelling money out the door”.
He has now chosen to go against a decades-long cross-party consensus, breaking his own manifesto promise and that of all his Conservative colleagues as he is dragged far right by the UK Independence party and the Brexit party, and implementing their promises to cut aid instead.
This will likely herald a new decade of austerity. Let us call it austerity 2.0. We all know what the first decade was like. There is nothing temporary about this motion. This is not global Britain; this is a nasty, short, poor, brutish and, most of all, very little Britain. Across this  House, we all stood on a manifesto commitment to protect the 0.7% spend on international development. That is, for those who are not very good at maths, 7p in every £10. When I describe that to children in primary schools I visit and to young people in my constituency, they are surprised at how little we spend as the sixth wealthiest nation in the world and they are right to be so.
Today, we have an opportunity to reaffirm our values, rather than be led into voting to balance the imaginary books on the backs of the world’s poorest. We must all keep to our word to deliver on our promises to our fellow global citizens who are the most marginalised and vulnerable people on earth. If covid has taught us anything, it is that we all share in the same struggles and challenges, but also the hopes and dreams of a better future, working together as one planet and one community. Now more than ever before we must step up to support our global community, not step away. There is no honour for those who have suffered as a result of this pandemic in stepping away. There is no meaning in the phrase “building back better” if we turn our backs. For those who decide to vote for this immoral motion today, there is no place for you to hide. When asked the question, “Why did you vote for this?” by your own children, friends and family and, equally importantly, constituents, it will be an indelible mark against your opportunity to do the right thing here today and you will have to live with it for the rest of your time in this House.

Andrew Mitchell: I draw the House’s attention to my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Government have done the right thing today in ensuring that this House has a vote on this matter, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for standing up for Parliament in that respect. There is a straight choice here, as was outlined by the Leader of the House yesterday in his statement. It is between rejecting this motion, in which case the Government will restore the 0.7% from next year—that was the olive branch that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I suggested—and accepting this so-called “Treasury compromise”. I tell the House that it is no compromise at all; it is a fiscal trap for the unwary.
First, it is quite possible that these conditions will never be met. We do not need to look in the crystal ball—we can read the book. It is indisputably the case that there has been only one occasion in the past two decades—in 2001—when these conditions would have been met. If we look at what the OBR has said, we see that it is incredibly clear that the debt to GDP measure will not fall until 2024-25 and day-to-day debt will not fall until 2025-26. Given that the 0.7% goes up and down with our economic performance, a very important point is that the 0.7% policy protects us in that respect.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that the OBR has exaggerated the gloom on the debt and deficit, particularly in the last two years? It exaggerated it by £50 billion for last year between November and March, so why on earth does he believe the OBR’s gloomy figures now? I am sure we are going to get the deficit down.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is looking in the crystal ball, but I have read in the book: in the past 20 years, this would have happened on just one occasion. So a vote for the Government tonight is a vote to end our 0.7 commitment.

Anthony Mangnall: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but does it say something when every economic and political commentator has said that this new mechanism will not see the 0.7% return in the way that it should and that this is a cop-out of the highest order?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, this is a trap for the unwary and a tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s silver tongue. So I shall certainly be voting against this motion and against the Government today. I shall do so with absolute conviction and profound disappointment. This is only the third time since I was elected in 1987 that I have voted against the Government, and on one of those occasions I was in the company of the Prime Minister in the Lobby. It is never easy to rebel and I thank those who have stood with us to support our manifesto. We should not be breaking our promise in this way. We should certainly not be seeking to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. I am incredibly proud to have been a member of a Conservative Administration who declined to do that even with the austerity that we faced.
For goodness sake, this is 1% of the borrowing that the Chancellor rightly made last year to shore up our country from covid. It is a tiny figure and it is the only cut that he has announced. That will have an enormous impact on our role in the world and, above all, on the huge number of people who will be severely damaged, maimed, blinded, as often happens, or indeed who will die as a result of the cuts. I remind the House that the cuts include a 25% cut to girls’ education, which is a top priority of our Prime Minister and this Administration. For neglected tropical diseases—thank goodness, the philanthropists have stepped in for one year only to protect the British taxpayers’ investment—we have cut aid by 90%. In Yemen, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, we have cut it by 60%, which is literally the equivalent of taking food away from starving people. This is what we are doing to the world’s poorest. This is how we are trashing our international reputation. We are the only country in the G7 that is cutting in the middle of a pandemic. Everyone else is increasing. This is a decision that we do not need to make. Since we started this campaign, there has been a 9% increase in support across our country for the Government’s policies. It is, to coin a phrase, worse than a crime; it is a mistake.
May I say, finally, in humble respect to my own party, that some of us have seen this movie before? It took us 23 years—until 2015—to achieve an overall majority by wiping out the Liberal Democrat seats, and to achieve it we secured the support of decent, internationalist, pro-development spending people, who saw from our time of austerity that we would stand by this promise. The former Brexit Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—and I visited Chesham and Amersham. May I say that our much-loved former colleague, Cheryl Gillan, would have been voting with us on this issue tonight? Anyone who thinks that  this issue is not affecting our party’s reputation is living in cloud cuckoo land. Chesham and Amersham has the biggest Christian Aid group in the country.
There is an unpleasant odour wafting out from under my party’s front door. This is not who we are. This is not what global Britain is. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this motion.

Sarah Champion: It does not show respect for the House to ask us to take such a significant decision with little notice, little explanation and no clarity about the consequences of today’s vote. It does not show respect for communities in the poorest parts of the world when this Government are willing to play games with their lives and livelihoods in this way. The Government present the motion as giving Parliament an opportunity to have a say on when and how the UK will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid. But today is not really about the 0.7% target, the cuts or the livelihoods that are already being affected by our reduced spending. It is about exerting pressure on Government Back Benchers who have been brave enough to call out what the Government are doing. Basically the Government are saying, “Back this or you will be blamed when taxes rise or spending falls”—things that will likely happen because of the pandemic anyway.
Today is yet another example of this Government’s complete lack of regard for parliamentary scrutiny, and they have form. There is a pattern of this Government withholding information until the last minute and then only making the most basic details available. Let us be clear: the Government have not brought forward a substantive motion for this debate. The motion that they have tabled is made in neutral terms—a device that was intended to allow the House to debate an issue without coming to a view. They claim that this debate is binding. It is not our procedures that make it binding; it is their political choice. This is a knee-jerk reaction dreamt up between last Thursday and yesterday in the face of growing criticism of this Government.
Yesterday’s written ministerial statement talks of returning to 0.7 % only when we are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. On their own, each of those tests is a high hurdle. When combined, these conditions become incredibly strict. Since the 0.7% target was introduced in 2013, these tests have been met only once. They explicitly link ODA spending to policy decisions made by other Government Departments on tax and spending. This double lock could lead to an indefinite cut in aid spending, and, of course, the tests do nothing to prevent the Government from dropping lower than the 0.5%.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the UK’s economy is forecast to return to pre-pandemic levels in the second quarter of 2020—faster than originally thought. If a return to economic normality is getting closer, why the need to introduce these extra tests before returning to 0.7%? They are just added roadblocks artfully placed by the Treasury on the track back to the legally mandated level of 0.7%. Fundamentally, the statement paints aid spending as an either/or choice; we are spending either on domestic public services or on  international aid. It is an artificial choice that MPs are being forced to make. This is a breathtakingly cynical manoeuvre and the House must not fall for it.

David Davis: I consider myself an economic Thatcherite, yet when I come to choose between money and lives, I always choose lives. This House should remember—this should be at the forefront of every Member’s mind today—that this is a vote where we are choosing whether or not to intervene to save lives. That is the key issue, not the monetary issue, which I will return to in a second.
The Government argue that this is a policy the United Kingdom cannot afford, but while we have heard about this being a small fraction of our borrowing, we should remember that it is an even smaller fraction of our spending. We spend, in a non-covid year, at least £800 billion; the £3.5 billion saving we are talking about is less than 0.5% of that. That is what the Treasury tells us is the critical, overwhelming measure that forces us to do something that has such dramatic consequences.
The Chancellor might say, as his press spokesman did in the course of last week, “Well, you find the money from somewhere else”—saying that to a past Public Accounts Committee Chairman is very dangerous for a Chancellor. We were in Chesham and Amersham a week or two ago, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, and Cheryl Gillan would have said to the Chancellor, “Well why don’t you just cancel HS2?” That is between £100 billion and £200 billion; it would pay for 25 to 50 years of this shortfall. It is really that simple.
So I do not really accept what the Chancellor is saying—that the only place, indeed the best place, for savings to be found is cutting aid, which will cost lives. Such a choice is morally reprehensible. Let us be clear about that—morally reprehensible.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly good point, but has he also noticed that, in the Chancellor’s outstanding policy on spending announced last November, the cut that he is referring to—this cut of 1% of the borrowing on covid last year—is the only cut that has been announced?

David Davis: My right hon. Friend is right. The prioritising of this cut makes it even more morally reprehensible. Indeed, at the same time, as I think the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), said, we are increasing spending on defence. I happen to agree with increasing spending on defence, but I do not agree with cutting spending on things that will lead to the need for more defence because of migration, civil wars and the rest of it.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out, the Government’s proposed double lock on returning to 0.7% is deceptive. It is designed to look reasonable. However, in fact, none of the people who have spoken so far has actually stated the full case. Although we say that the condition has been met only once since 1990, under a Conservative Government, and has never been met, really—well, it was once, just  about—since the 0.7% policy was put in place, it has actually never been met since 1970, because the wording is not “a current budget surplus” but
“a sustainable current budget surplus”.
All the current budget surpluses we have been talking about so far have been for one year—and frankly, the one under us in 2018 lasted about 10 nanoseconds; it was a very tiny surplus. In practice, we have not had a sustainable current surplus since the 1970s, so I am afraid that, under the actual wording in the statement, we are not looking at 0.7% for a very long time indeed. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say it would be years, possibly decades, possibly never, and I think he is right about that.
Even if the conditions were to be met, the proposal will do nothing to deal with the crises that are caused by the policy already, right now. The Government argue that the cuts are temporary, but death is never temporary—and this will cause deaths.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Hilary Benn.

Hilary Benn: Since Ministers announced that the UK was going to be the only G7 country to cut its aid this year, despite all the other countries facing the same fiscal pressures, there is not one Member of this House who is not now aware of the consequences of the decision that Ministers have taken—a cut of 85% in the support that we give to the United Nations Population Fund to prevent maternal and child death and unwanted pregnancy; a cut of 95% to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, at the very moment when the world is closer than it has ever been to eradicating that dreadful disease; and a cut of 50% in the support we give to the humanitarian mine action programme, which stops people losing their arms, their legs and their lives to unexploded ordnance. It is a very long list, and every one of those things harms our reputation and does not help us to persuade others, because other countries judge us not by what we say, but by what we do.
The choice before the House today is a very stark one: do we act to put this right, or do we accept the double lock that has been proposed? I urge the House to reject it, because there is a principle here. What is it about the level of Government spending on helping the world’s poorest people that means that it alone is going to be subject to these tests? No other area of Government expenditure is: just this one. If this is about protecting the public finances, why is this area of Government expenditure—the money we spend on getting children into school, or on vaccinating children so they do not die of diseases that our children do not die of—being singled out? I have great admiration for the OBR, but determining the level of our international aid spending is not part of its responsibility. It is the Government’s responsibility, it is a political responsibility, and Ministers should not try to pass the buck on to someone else, especially since the latest OBR forecast makes clear that it is exceedingly unlikely that the two tests would be met in the next five years.

Mark Harper: Can I just pick the right hon. Gentleman up on that point about other areas of expenditure? The Treasury and the Chancellor have set out these tests—promises that are in our manifesto, and which we mean  to keep. The comprehensive spending review is taking place this year, and it seems to me that we will be judging all other areas of Government expenditure by these same measures. I see the Chancellor nodding, so it seems to me that we are being very consistent here, and it is important that we keep our promises about our fiscal responsibilities as well as getting back on track to meet our aid responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: I am afraid that I take a different view of the Government’s consistency from the right hon. Gentleman’s, because they have chosen quite specifically, knowingly and deliberately to break a cast-iron promise to the world’s poorest people that was also contained in that manifesto. As I said in my last contribution on this subject, most of those people probably have no idea that this House made that commitment together, but the Government have chosen to break it, and the choice we are making today is whether we think that is right or wrong.
The Chancellor might think that the double lock is a way out of this political problem, but I do not think it is, because the issue before us has not gone away. It is just the same as it was on the day when the original cut was announced, and the question before us is whether it is right—morally, practically or politically—to break our word to the world’s poorest people. I would argue that it is not: it is wrong in principle and it is harmful in practice, as we have heard from excellent speeches made by Conservative Members. It is not who we are; it is not the country that we should aspire to be; and I ask the House to reject this motion so that we can restore aid to 0.7% and keep the promise that we made to the people of this country and the people of the world.

Pauline Latham: I rise really very sadly today, because like everybody else I stood on a manifesto that said that we would honour that 0.7% commitment, and I was there when we voted on it originally. The people we are trying to protect have already been hit, because our economy declined at the beginning of the covid pandemic. They will continue to be hit by this reduction to 0.5%, because 0.7% of a figure is a lot more than 0.5%. The amount has gone down hugely already, and people are suffering.
If we take a random family with two parents and maybe six children, four of whom are boys and two of whom are girls, the girls will be the ones who have less food and who would benefit from the nutritional programmes that we provide, but we will not be providing those programmes. The girls would normally get less food, because boys are prioritised in many families, and the boys would probably go to school, whereas the girls would not be able to go to school because they would not have the funding to enable them to afford it. The Prime Minister has stood so often on the promise that he will educate all girls with 12 years of quality education. Well, no matter how he protests, that is not going to happen now.
I feel that we are letting down the poorest people in the world. We are devastating their futures for £4 billion, which, as we have heard, is 1% of what has already been borrowed. It is not a lot of money. We have borrowed that money and, as has been said by many, the people who we should be benefiting will not benefit. They will  not have malaria treatments, they will not have the neglected tropical disease treatments and they will not have all the help they need. Especially, they will have earlier marriages and younger pregnancies because we are cutting the devastating figure of 85% of the family planning budget and the abortion budget. That is going to devastate many girls. Many girls will die in early childbirth because of this decision by the Government.
I find it shocking that this Government are doing this. We are a Conservative Government, and we decided to spend the 0.7%. We legislated for it, and now we are letting the very poorest people down. I do not see how anybody who has heard the speeches today could in all conscience vote to support what the Government want to do with the double lock, because we will never get back to 0.7%.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Members from across the House for their perseverance on this issue. When the Government announced last summer that the Department for International Development would merge with the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I and my fellow Liberal Democrats warned of the risk to overseas development assistance and funding. I asked an urgent question to the Foreign Secretary I wrote to the Secretary of State for International Development on those very issues. The Secretary of State said at the time:
“We are committed to the 0.7% of GNI commitment…We want the aid budget and the development know-how and expertise that we have in DFID—it has done a fantastic job…at the beating heart of our international decision-making processes.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 947.]
But here we are, just one year later. With the Government having claimed just last week that the opportunity to vote on this cut to ODA spending had been lost by a Division not being called in the recent estimates day debate, I wonder what has caused them to change their mind and bring forward today’s debate at such short notice.
Economic circumstances caused by covid are not the fault of the world’s poorest, and we and the many charities and NGOs that contacted me in advance of today’s debate know that the poorest will be hardest hit by these cuts. The reality of the covid pandemic is that no one is safe until everyone is safe. At the heart of this is the sharing of urgently needed vaccines around the world, but it is not only that. We know that global inequalities and poverty mean that people around the world cannot take precautions to protect themselves. We cannot expect those without access to clean water—785 million at the last count in 2017—to be able to wash their hands for 20 seconds.
Slashing development spending is deeply harmful to the notion of global Britain and to us at home. The cuts to this funding also mean cuts to spending within the UK, a fact that I think is sometimes lost. ODA funding goes to many places, including our universities that are doing research into how best to tackle the entrenched causes of global inequality and how to support developing countries to be self-sufficient. St Andrews University in my constituency is looking at up to 50% cuts to some of  its active projects, which will impact on the poorest today. These cuts harm not only those in need around the world but our own research and innovation industries, which are vital to our response to Brexit and to facing the climate crisis.
Turning to the Government’s update, the fiscal tests for development spending presented today are the height of cynicism. They are designed never to be met. As others have said, we have met these tests only once in this century. Conservative MPs must know that supporting today’s motion means not returning to 0.7% in this Parliament, and that means that every one of them who supports the Government today will be breaking their manifesto promise for five years in a row. It is a straight choice: do we return to 0.7%, as we were all elected to this place to do, or do we fail to be the global leader on this issue that the UK has been to this point?

Thomas Tugendhat: I am delighted to be called, and I pay enormous tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting on the Front Bench today. The Chancellor demonstrated during his career before reaching this place that we can do well by doing good. In working for the Children’s Investment Fund Management, he proved that finance and capitalism can support the world’s poorest and change lives, but he will also recognise that even an impressive fund such as that is built on a stable platform created by Governments and guaranteed by organisations, international bodies and others. I am very sorry but for that reason I will not be able to support him today, because that platform is so important. That confidence and ability to rely on a stable platform for the future is essential. Instead of that continuity and that guarantee of an enduring future, we are sadly going back towards the yo-yo policy. That is not just bad because of the variability; it is bad because it costs more and delivers less. Frankly, it is inefficient, it is an error and it undermines our capability.
Nobody in this House is more passionate about global Britain or Britain’s place in the world than me. Nobody believes more that we should have a place at every table and a voice in every room. But we need to know that we are no longer buying that with gunboats; we are buying it with the aid and the effectiveness that we bring.

Anthony Mangnall: My hon. and gallant Friend is making an impressive speech. He talks about global Britain; the point of global Britain is diplomacy, trade, aid and defence. Those four things are interconnected with one another: if we reduce one, that has an impact on all. That will be detrimental to everything from the integrated review to our outside approach.

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend is completely correct. Of course, the reality is that we are not living in a vacuum—we are not taking these decisions with nobody watching. Our friends are watching and our rivals are watching. As we make this decision, as we change our policy on Afghanistan, and as we buy different seats at various UN tables through our diplomacy in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and South America, we know that we are changing the rules by which we live. We are literally changing the standards of our modern world through how we buy support, develop allies and partner around the world.
As Members have said, this debate is of course about the world’s poorest, but it is not just about the world’s poorest. Fundamentally, it is about Britain and how we protect ourselves. How do we shape this world? How do we get the standards that make sure that British businesses succeed, British finance shapes the world and British rules are those that the world lives by? We do that by making sure that we win the votes at the UN by making sure that we have the voices around the table—the voices of the Foreign Ministers of countries around the world. We can do it; I know that because we have done it. For 20 years we have won debates, shaped arguments and defended our position. We have done it by doing well and by doing good—exactly as the Chancellor demonstrated in his pre-political career.
I can understand why the Government might say that these targets—these ambitions—are too high and that they wish to set a different spending limit, but that is not the argument they are making. The argument that the Government are making is the Augustinian argument: “Lord, make me chaste—but not just yet.” If you wish to be holy, choose sanctity; if you wish not to be, be frank with what you are choosing.

Liam Byrne: That was a great speech and it is a pleasure to follow it.
The House does not need a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury to lay out how today’s motion is a con job, but I shall explain it anyway. The Red Book published at the most recent Budget shows that public sector net debt will not fall until 2024 at the earliest, but there is no way that a Chancellor or Chief Secretary would ever make a judgment about whether it was falling sustainably on one year alone, which means that this cut is now forecast to stretch way into the next Parliament. Yet the sums we are talking about are just 0.14% of the national debt stock. This comes at a time when we are putting up defence spending by £24 billion yet cutting aid spending by £4 billion. We are boasting about our soft power superpower status and then slashing into the budget that delivers that soft power. A country’s values are judged by its budget, and this aid cut tells us everything we need to know about this Government’s priorities.
The second point is that this aid cut will cost lives and it will cost livelihoods. The Prime Minister sailed into the G7 very proud of his declaration that he wanted to jab the world and make sure that, by the end of next year, the world would be safe from covid. However, by the end of the G7, the IMF said that we were about $23 billion short of what we needed for a global vaccination programme. This aid cut will not help that; it will hurt that effort to jab the world.
Moreover, we have a significant problem now getting the world back on its feet after this pandemic. The IMF thinks that we need about $200 billion extra in spending to protect the world against covid and $250 billion of extra investment—climate-friendly investment—to help safeguard the recovery. How will this aid cut help with that great global project that we must attend to in the years ahead? It will not; it will damage the world’s efforts to get there and it will damage our efforts to help persuade others to get to that big target.
It is 36 years to the day since we celebrated Live Aid, an example of how we in this country set out to lead the world to help the world’s poorest. On this day of all  days the Government are set to surrender that leadership. We cannot have a rules-based order if we have a Prime Minister who continues to shred the rules. This is a renegade act by a renegade Government and I will be voting against the motion tonight.

Jeremy Wright: There are, I think, two primary arguments for opposing the Government this afternoon. The first is that the 0.7% overseas aid target was a manifesto commitment. That is a serious point, though the electorate will appreciate that the expectations on which those manifestos were based have changed substantially since covid-19.
The second is that the target is in statute in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. That is true, but the Act also envisages and allows for circumstances in which the Government might not meet the target in any given year, including the impact on public borrowing, and Parliament cannot stop the Government doing so. The Act, at section 3(1), is very clear about that. We have the right only to be informed of how and why the target is to be missed. As far as I can tell, nobody is proposing to amend the 2015 Act, so it will remain unchanged whatever the vote this afternoon.
I welcome the Government’s clarification that they are not seeking unilaterally to change the statutory target, but rather to miss it. Those are different things, and the former would, in my view, be both wrong and unlawful, but we either trust the Government or we do not. If we do not trust the Government—and we are here because a large number of Members do not—why would we trust them to keep the 0.7% commitment beyond next year when the Act so clearly allows them to decide not to? Transparent, externally judged criteria, arguably at least, would leave those of us who want to see the preservation of aid spending in a stronger position than under the 2015 Act alone, which applies what are in truth fairly loose shackles to Government on aid spending and leaves it entirely to Government to decide when to escape them, and that cannot help provide the certainty that the aid sector rightly seeks.
I believe in the merits of overseas aid spending and I have used many of the arguments made so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who deserves huge credit for extracting the compromises that the Government have already made. Those arguments, though, must in the end persuade the public whose money we are spending. As Conservatives, we also argue that high public debt is bad for our long-term capacity to support the vulnerable everywhere. Enduring public support for aid spending may well depend on the public recognising that we have apportioned the financial burden of the covid crisis fairly, and not protected aid spending to the detriment of other areas of spending that they may find at least as deserving. I think the Government are now trying to strike that balance. Recognising though I do the strength of the arguments made by many on both sides of this House in the course of this debate, it is important and necessary to give the Government credit for that effort.

Sam Tarry: The Government’s decision to renege on their international obligations rides roughshod over those ring-fenced commitments  and puts at risk the lives of millions across the globe. That is not in our national interest, and it is certainly not in our national security interest, and that is before taking into consideration our moral duty as a nation to alleviate global poverty.
Damningly, several former Prime Ministers, who proudly upheld our country’s aid commitments, have voiced their concerns about this Government’s handling of their international aid obligations. Indeed, we heard earlier that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has committed to voting against a three-line Conservative Whip for the first time ever, so powerfully does she feel about this issue.
When the right hon. Lady spoke in this debate, she was crystal clear on what the aid cuts would mean, “fewer girls will be educated, more girls and boys will become slaves, more children will go hungry and more of the poorest people in the world will die.” A damning indictment from a former Conservative Prime Minister.
The UK has a long and proud track record of stepping up to support those in need. We cannot abandon our responsibilities to those around the world who are most poverty-stricken, least of all in a global pandemic. The UK is currently the only G7 country to commit in legislation to spending 0.7% of gross national income on international development, a target set by the United Nations, and it is the second largest international development donor behind only the US. That is right and proper, and it is a fact.
The extended families of many of my Ilford South constituents directly benefit from UK aid, lifting millions out of illiteracy and poverty and providing so much support to some of the poorest communities around the globe, including in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka.
However, instead of leading by example, this Government are now, shamefully, the only G7 Government to cut their aid budget this year. There can be no clearer argument against cutting aid than the devastating impact on the covid response. In April this year, when the delta variant was ravaging India, vital coronavirus research centres—including a project tracking variants in India—had their funding reduced by up to 70%, prompting the project lead to say that the cut would not only make vital projects unviable but would, in effect, kill them dead.
In May, the Tropical Health and Education Trust criticised the UK Government for slashing £48 million in global healthcare funding as part of their wider cuts. Indeed, the NHS’s plans to donate 6 million items of personal protective equipment to healthcare workers fighting new variants across the world were held up, yet again preventing the containment of the virus.
We have a duty to act, and we must do so now before it is too late for millions who rely on direct aid. This is not about giving a man a fish to feed himself but about giving him a net to provide for himself. It is about our historic obligation to lift up the global south using our nation’s far greater resources.
I welcome the actions of Conservative Members who will join us today in voting against this callous and awful manoeuvre by the Government.

Bim Afolami: This is a very difficult debate, because all of us, on both sides of the House, know what good UK aid spending does. We are all proud of what we have been able to achieve with our aid spending. It does not just help in and of itself; it also helps the British taxpayer and British people because, by investing in areas like education, vaccination and supporting local economies, we stop some of those problems washing up on British shores.
We understand that but, when we get underneath all this, it is really about competing political necessities and competing political choices. On the one hand, as we come out of the covid pandemic—we know how many hundreds of billions of pounds have been spent—we have a real need, as a responsible Government in fiscal terms, to get our day-to-day spending back in balance and to ensure that our debt ends up falling as a percentage of GDP. That will enable the public spending to support all the vulnerable people in this country—all British taxpayers everywhere—as well as the poorest people in the world through aid spending. At the same time, there is a need to help the poorest people in the world. That is the balance that we are trying to strike, and I believe that the Government have struck the right one.
Some hon. Members have talked about the fiscal tests the Government have set, and they somehow suggest that the tests have been met only once in the past 20 years. I have looked at it, and both tests were met in 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2018-19. If I am right, although the Chancellor may correct me if I am wrong, underlying debt fell for four years in a row before the pandemic, so it is not true that, somehow, these are impossible tests.
Even if hon. Members do not believe me, the key thing, and this is why I respect and accept this compromise position, is that these are transparent and clear criteria. Everybody knows what they are. We can judge them independently, and the OBR, which we all know and trust, is perfectly capable of doing so. Finally, what is important is not just how much money is spent but how we spend it. What I would like to see in our aid budget is more of that money, not just with multinationals, which do a lot of good work, but for smaller charities working on the ground such as Harpenden Spotlight on Africa, which is based in my constituency and does fantastic work in rural Uganda. Having seen the work that it does on the ground, working with bigger multinationals and the Ugandan Government, I know that such charities can do fantastic things, and I would like to see the spend that we have, at 0.5% temporarily, go more towards some of those grassroots organisations so that we can spend our money even more effectively and get more for what we are doing.

Ruth Jones: I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, but that would not be true. I am appalled that we are having to vote on this proposal at all. This cut to our international aid budget reflects badly on all of us, not just the Government, and portrays the UK as inward-looking and self-serving.
This is a Tory manifesto promise that will be broken, and broken very publicly, as the whole world is watching. I wonder how the Prime Minister can have the bottle to  attend COP26 and call on other countries to raise finances for climate action, given that he is in charge of a Government who are cutting their own contribution—surely the ultimate act of hypocrisy.
If overseas aid funding was going to finance vanity projects, trips to the moon or high-flying, cutting-edge dodgy ventures, I could begin to understand the reasoning behind the decision, but none of the projects fall into those categories. They are basic health and social care projects that benefit millions of people across poorer countries on our planet. It funds basic projects such as polio eradication, sexual health advice, the clearing of landmines, education programmes, the provision of clean water and sanitation, and the prevention of sexual exploitation of women and girls. The money funds training programmes such as the NHS overseas training scheme, which trains 78,000 healthcare workers in Nepal, Uganda, Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Myanmar.
Many projects will now come to an end, affecting lives in countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somaliland, Nigeria and many more. By cutting funding to those numerous projects the Government will cause many unnecessary deaths, which is a scandal. We must highlight that callous approach today. Before Government Members say, “Oh, it is just Labour Members whingeing again”, let us have a look at the people who are calling for a reversal of the cuts: Tory Ministers such as Ruth Davidson; Baroness Sugg, who resigned from the Government in November over the cuts; and the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma).
World leaders have condemned the cuts, including Samantha Power, head of the United States Agency for International Development, and Malala, who calls on the Prime Minister to keep his promise of helping 40 million girls go to school, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who describes the Chancellor’s decision as “shameful and wrong”. Interestingly, every living former Prime Minister is opposed to the plan. These are big hitters, and their condemnation is clear. I therefore urge the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor to think again, go back to the drawing board, and plan a different route that does not disadvantage millions of people in countries less affluent than our own. This is not fair and it is not right. I want to be very clear: I will vote against the Government’s plan to cut the overseas aid budget by £4 billion this year, and I urge Government Members to do the same, because the world is watching.

David Warburton: I am pleased that the House has an opportunity both to debate and to determine this question. I have always defended our aid budget, and I do not think that we should search for economies at the expense of the most vulnerable globally and at the expense of our own reputation and influence globally.
I do not need to rehearse the case for ODA spending, which funds the vaccination of 55 million people; saves an incredible 10 million children from hunger; and helps to provide 50 million people with the means to climb out of poverty. I do not need to describe its soft-power benefits: the influence for Britain culturally, diplomatically, and politically; its symbolic significance; and its demonstration of leadership. I could not, therefore, support the reduction of that spending when the return to 0.7% is effectively at the whim or under the control of  the Government. No matter how strong the intention to raise it again, events are always likely to overtake and overcome good intentions.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the conversations that we have had in recent days. Given the uncertainty in the economy, I entirely understand his reluctance to offer a date for the restoration of the 0.7%. However, a set of conditions would provide a pathway, governed by objective circumstances, to a solution. Ceding control of the mechanism to the OBR and basing it on conditions that were met as recently as 2018-19—and forecasted by the OBR in 2018-19 and in 2020 to be met in the following financial year—would provide that pathway back to our manifesto commitment and our duty to the world.
The Treasury is effectively outsourcing its spending decisions to the OBR and the state of the public finances. I do not believe that that has happened before and it provides us with the certainty we need that the cut is temporary and that our commitment to 0.7% will be upheld. It also ensures that our public finances are protected. That not only gives us a route back, but ensures that the current position is transitory, so I will support the motion. The worth of a commitment is whether it is upheld in the face of challenges, and the motion allows us to meet our challenges and our commitments.

Geraint Davies: There is no economic or moral justification for cutting overseas aid from the richest to the poorest at this most desperate time in the eye of the pandemic storm, which spreads death, disease and hunger like a wildfire through developing nations. Let us imagine looking at our children starving in front of us, huddled in a tent in the blistering heat of Afghanistan, Yemen or Syria, as we think about the cars, houses, fridges and Netflix that people have in the west. Let us imagine looking at our daughters who could help create a better world with an education but will not get one, or our parents who have just died from covid. We can help alleviate such poverty, ignorance and disease by reinstating the aid budget. As host of the G7 and COP26, we should take moral leadership.
Let us be clear: we can afford to help those in greatest need more, not less because the cost of UK borrowing is down, not up, since the pandemic. Why? Global interest rates are down, so our borrowing costs are down—from £37 billion in 2019-20 to £23 billion in 2020-21. That is a saving of £14 billion in spending on debt interest for the UK, but aid spending is still being cut by £4.4 billion. The Prime Minister has just said that every pound we spend on aid has to be borrowed. We can afford more aid now because our borrowing and debt interest costs are massively down. Now is the time to invest and to build back better out of the pandemic in the developing world, and to invest in climate change adaptation, with new green industries that will help all our environments.
In a low interest world, now is the time to borrow and invest. A cut of £1 million in aid could be reinstated and service a debt of £100 million in investment. Only the G7 can borrow at such low interest rates; developing nations cannot. It is no use saying that we cannot afford it this year due to the pandemic and that maybe we will reinstate money in future years. We can afford it this year, and now is when the money is needed most. If  savings were needed—and they are not—they should be made after the pandemic, when the poorest are back on their feet, not in their darkest hour of need.
We know the politics of popular nationalism. We know that 7.6 million people in the UK are in hunger, so of course people are saying that charity begins at home. But that hunger is unnecessary too and we should not give other G7 nations an excuse to cut their aid. We need more aid, not less. Britain is better than this. Let us make the world better. Let us reinstate our aid budget now.

Greg Clark: I am glad to see the Chancellor in his place; I have a couple of specific questions for him on science policy.
First, in the context of this debate, I am very proud of our leadership and our contribution to supporting people right across the world. I voted enthusiastically for the Act of Parliament that brought the 0.7% commitment into law. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his work on that Act, but, in so doing, he will know that it specifically anticipated circumstances in which, temporarily, the 0.7% target may not be met, including
“any substantial change in gross national income”
and/or
“fiscal circumstances…in particular, the likely impact of…the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing”.
It is hard not to consider that the circumstances that we are experiencing fall plumb into line with what the framers of the legislation and those who supported it had in mind.

Andrew Mitchell: I was involved in the drafting of the Act and I do not believe that that is what we intended with those clauses. Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that the economy will have been restored to pre-covid levels by next month? Does he not think that that is a very significant indicator of why we should not be doing what the Government would like us to do today?

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I quite agree that that is an encouraging assessment, not least for the prospects of our returning to the 0.7%.
I studied very carefully the Hansard transcripts of the debate, and some of the criticism was that the criteria might be insufficiently precise, so the innovation of establishing in advance and giving to the Office for Budget Responsibility the trigger for the return is a sensible course. Indeed, this mirrors, more or less, the fiscal rules that were once called the fiscal mandate that were in place at the time that the Act was originally adopted. I want the target back, and I hope, as the Governor does, that that will be sooner rather than later, and that the Chancellor will be able to confirm that it is his firm intention, as I think is clear from what he said in the written statement.
My questions on science are twofold. First, the science budget is, very importantly, increasing from about £9 billion a year in 2017 to £22 billion a year from 2024-25. That includes, as it always has done, official development assistance. Will the Chancellor specifically reiterate the commitment to achieving that £22 billion by 2024-25?  Secondly, will he reassure me on a report I read that the 0.5% limit on ODA could somehow prevent us from engaging in international scientific research projects that we were perfectly willing to fund because they are excellent and are justified as part of the budget that is rising to £22 billion? We all know that science is inherently international. The best science is global and the best teams are often international teams, so it would be a great concern if the 0.5% target would in any way be a cap on international collaboration. Knowing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s commitment to science and technology, I cannot believe that that is his intention. His commitment to the £22 billion budget and his reassurance that the target will not be a cap will be very important in establishing that the science aspect can continue, and that this is, in effect, the removal of a ring-fence rather than a limitation on international scientific research.

Chris Matheson: The Prime Minister told the House earlier that there was common ground in the House. I think he is right, but I suspect, having listened to contributions from the Conservative Benches, that he is not standing on that common ground. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for the courage that he and other Conservative Members have shown in standing up for this issue consistently, and also standing up for their manifesto, along with the rest of us. The Government have a good story to tell on this issue if they wanted to—on Gavi, for example, and on their support for education for women and girls. I wonder why they do not want to tell this story to the country. I think it is because too many of them are ashamed of it and because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they are playing to a gallery but playing to the wrong gallery. It is a dangerous game that they are playing.
The proposals before the House today are myopic and mean-minded. They are mean-minded because we can see that this is a trick—a fiscal trap. We were promised a straight up-and-down vote but we were not given one; instead we were given this little twisting mechanism. It is mean-minded, too, because, as we have heard, it will cost lives to make these cuts, and because they are already a cut to what would have been a smaller cake anyway. The money had already gone down and to cut it further is simply mean. With any of these programmes we cannot simply turn the taps on, then off and then back on again. The damage that will be done to British overseas aid programmes will carry on long after we restore the 0.7%, if, under this proposed mechanism, we ever do restore it.
This cut will set programmes back. It will set research and development back, including for my constituents. I have a constituent who works in water purification and another who works in localised energy matters. These cuts will have an effect overseas, but let us be clear: they will have effects in this country as well, in terms of innovation and our ability to take technologies across the world. They will have effects in areas such as the polio eradication programme. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has said, cuts of 95% will set that programme back. The cut is myopic, for the reasons already set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom  Tugendhat): it will damage British soft power, with the British Council telling me that it will lose 15% to 20% of staff and will be unable to carry out programmes in the countries where we need to be influencing; and it will affect our strategic position, as the Leader of the Opposition has said.
Overseas aid is a moral issue, but if we cannot look at it like that, let us be clear: our adversaries, Russia and China, and our enemies, al-Qaeda and Islamic State, will fill the gap if we do not, and this will simply make matters worse in the long run. This is a short-sighted, short-termist cut. It is mean-minded. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for his leadership, and I will not be accepting this motion tonight.

Saqib Bhatti: I start by acknowledging the excellent speeches made by a number of hon. Members who have so passionately set out the case for official development assistance. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) eloquently and characteristically passionately made the case for the ODA budget. In normal times I would be with him in this debate, but today I support the Government’s decision.
I am a big believer in the role of international aid and how it shows the world what we stand for as a nation. Our role on the global stage is amplified by our magnanimity through international aid, and in a world with ever-increasing threats our ODA budget represents a tool through which the UK can demonstrate its generosity, moral strength, friendship and nobility. When considering this, one can understand why it evokes so much passion from Members in all parts of the House, Indeed, many of my constituents have spoken to me about the importance they attach to the ODA budget, but time and time again they have said to me, “We know it has been a difficult time. We know we must manage the economy. We know we must pay the bills.” As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said, we cannot ignore the state our economy is in, after the worst crisis since the last two world wars. Having borrowed more than £300 billion, the equivalent of 14.3% of our GDP, it is clear that difficult decisions have to be made.
In that context, I understand why the Government have had to make this temporary cut, but it must be temporary. With the clarity offered by the Treasury, I believe it will be. Of course we must repair our economy—that is not a controversial thing; it is simply what is expected of us by the British people. We will also continue to spend almost £10 billion as part of the ODA budget if this cut is to go through. The British people also expect strong public services and efficiency from government, so difficult decisions are inevitable and they obviously have to be made. We also continue to demonstrate our soft power through other means, with the distribution of the vaccine being an excellent example. The Government’s investment meant that there were 500 million doses available to 168 countries, all distributed at no profit. By the end of the year, we will have distributed 3 billion doses—this is British ingenuity and British generosity.
Finally, in a world of finite resources and increasing strains on our economy, we must make sure that our ODA is being deployed effectively, and projects should  be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny. In other words, not just how much we spend, but how we spend that money should be important—outcomes matter. The effectiveness of the budget should not be measured purely in monetary terms; we should measure it against robust targets, which are set to achieve our objectives and ultimately make the world a better place.

Alicia Kearns: I am enormously proud of our record of supporting the most vulnerable and using aid to make our people and those around the world safer, but we have suffered the biggest recession in 300 years. That is not a situation that we could have predicted when I fought the election on our manifesto promises, yet the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 explicitly anticipated this sort of crisis where a departure from targets is necessary.
If I had been asked during the election whether I would reconsider the 0.7% commitment, I would have said, “Yes, but only in the very darkest of times,” and if the last year or so has not been the darkest of times, then what is? Since my election, we have faced an enormous number of difficult choices. In Rutland and Melton those difficult choices and dark times have looked like this: the Government having to support 17,900 jobs through furlough and 4,500 individuals, and underwrite nearly £123 million in loans—that is almost half of all employee jobs in Rutland and Melton that we had to save. That support was necessary, but the costs pose real risks for the future, too.
Even with the reduction in UK aid, we remain the second largest donor in the G7. The taxes of residents of Rutland and Melton will continue to go towards saving lives, disaster relief, peacekeeping, and tackling climate change. We should be proud of that, and I hope that the reorganisation of the FCDO can augment our capacity to respond to crises outside of the ODA budget through the new conflict centre.
But today in the Chamber hon. Members have criticised the Government by arguing that other G7 countries are not temporarily reducing their ODA budgets, yet in 2020 we were one of only two G7 countries to meet that target and we are the only one to do it every year since 2013. Perhaps it is because those countries have not met their commitments in normal times that they do not now need to make a temporary reduction; indeed, they had no plans in the first place to meet the 0.7% they promised.
With this temporary reduction, we will still exceed the funding provided by every country bar one; we will remain one the most generous countries in the world. This is a temporary measure that recognises the fiscal duty we have to our children. It recognises that we will still stand by those most in need, and the Government have defined the fiscal circumstances in which we will return to 0.7%. This does not diminish our country, and, while this is a difficult decision, it is the right one for now because we have faced the darkest of times.

Alyn Smith: The Scottish National party opposes these cuts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) eloquently outlined. We  are committed to our 0.7% manifesto commitment. Some 98.2% of the votes cast in the Sterling election in 2019 went to parties committed to the 0.7%, so I am representing my party and my constituency in the stance we have taken.
I pay tribute to and warmly praise a number of Members on the Government Benches; we have heard some refreshing blasts of integrity throughout this discussion. This is too important for Punch and Judy politics.
There are just three points I would make, because this is a well-trodden path at this point in the debate. First, the 0.7% figure is a Government manifesto commitment made barely 18 months ago. Secondly, yes, covid has changed everything of course, but it has changed everything for everybody else as well, and to use covid as a pretext for this cut when the developing world is also dealing with covid and the effects of the economic impact is reprehensible.
Thirdly, the cut is out of step with the rest of the world. The UK is the outlier in this; other countries are increasing, not decreasing, their aid spending. The UK remains, as we have heard, a significant donor of international aid—I applaud that, I welcome that, I acknowledge that—but this is a broken promise to the poorest people in the world at the worst possible time, and it flies in the face of the global consensus. Canada is increasing its spend by 28% while the UK is decreasing its by 25%, and France is increasing its spend by 36%, Italy by 13%, the US by 39.4% and Germany by 6%. It is the UK that is out of step.
Global Britain is clearly not the SNP’s project, but we are engaged in this because we do not want to see the poorest in the world let down. We want to try to rectify a mistake and to see Scottish taxes—or, more realistically, Scottish debt—go to effective purposes rather than where this Government might take them. We are entirely unconvinced by the Government’s compromise proposal; we think that to present this as an arithmetic formula is to misrepresent this issue entirely. Estimates and numbers are arguable of course, but, as has been acknowledged throughout this debate, only once in the last 20 years have the criteria foreseen within the Government’s mechanism been met. We fear this is a formula to entrench the cuts, not to bring the spending back.
Now, of course the books need to be balanced, and I feel for the Government in that task, but the difference between 0.5% and 0.7% is barely 1% of the global sum. For a Government who have spent money on increasing defence spending and nuclear capacity, blown £1.3 billion on a needless stamp duty freeze and yet—worse—are talking about a royal yacht, I think the priorities are wrong. I do hope that a significant number of Conservative Members will join the coalition to put this right.

Sarah Dines: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith).
I have been speaking to my constituents in Derbyshire Dales who are, by and large, generous and kind-spirited people. I have listened carefully to their views and, following those discussions, I will be voting for the motion as it provides certainty and a clearly outlined path for our international spending to get back to our 0.7% manifesto commitment while delivering responsible  public finances and allowing us to maintain a high level of spending on other priorities at home such as the NHS, schools and the police. It also delivers on our manifesto promises for responsible public finances.
At 0.5%, the UK is spending more than £10 billion on overseas aid this year. That is a phenomenal amount of money. Let us not forget that we are one of the most generous, kindest and biggest spenders in the world. I remind those who wish unfairly to characterise the Government as somehow mean or uncaring that Conservative Governments have consistently spent more on international aid than Labour. Under Labour Governments between 1997 and 2009, the average spend on overseas aid was just 0.36% The Opposition are therefore hardly in a position to lecture the Government on overseas spending. The Leader of the Opposition may find those arguments helpful in court, but they do not work here. Once again, the Opposition are totally out of tune with the British population.
We believe that, given the unusual time that the Government have had with the covid pandemic, we must balance spending. The Government have spent more than £400 billion on keeping the nation safe, keeping our families secure and preserving jobs and livelihoods. That has given the people of my constituency a way forward in frightening and worrying times. On behalf of the people of Derbyshire Dales, I thank the Government for their support. They are kind, not mean.
We must not forget that, as my adult sons remind me regularly, every pound we spend on international aid is borrowed from our future generations. As a mother of four adult children, and representing many families in Derbyshire Dales, I have a duty to help restore the public finances to some sort of responsible level. For those reasons, I have no hesitation in supporting this sound motion.

Stephen Timms: We had a 20-year cross-party consensus that we should meet the UN’s target of 0.7% of GNI on aid. I very much regret that that consensus has been lost. Of course, when GDP goes down, our aid budget will go down, but the pandemic is no justification for reducing the proportion of national income committed to international aid.
In a fine speech, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) referred to the strength of Christian Aid in Chesham and Amersham. As a Treasury Minister in the late 1990s, I saw the churches play the key role in securing that cross-party consensus. They were the instigators of Jubilee 2000 ahead of the millennium and the key supporters of Make Poverty History afterwards. Those campaigns led to the historic 2005 Gleneagles deal in which $40 billion of debts owed by 18 highly indebted poor countries were written off. The idea of cancelling unpayable debts inspired people and drew them together. Rooted in teaching in the Bible, it had a dramatic impact on Government policy and on the lives of millions.
Last month, I joined MPs on a virtual trip to Togo organised by the Christian charity Compassion UK. We “visited” its UK aid-funded child survival project. The situation in Togo is desperate. Under-five mortality is among the worst in the world, one in 25 babies does not reach the age of one, and women have a one-in-58 chance of dying in pregnancy or childbirth. Compassion  UK’s work, supported by UK aid, is starting to change things: in the first year, the project reached more than 4,000 people in extreme poverty and the number of full-term healthy babies delivered was 24% above target. UK development aid helps to save lives among the world’s poorest people.
We met somebody called Ama, who registered in the programme when she was seven months pregnant. She was struggling to feed her children. When she reached full term, her husband left suddenly. She also had malaria. Her baby and her own life were at risk. The child survival project provided food and hygiene support. Her expenses were paid, she gave birth to a son and she has since been able to set up a business of her own.
Even a small amount of aid saves lives. The cuts to UK aid put thousands of projects like those run by Compassion UK in Togo at risk. I really hope that Parliament will reject the motion.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has probably the most difficult job in the Government, bar none, and perhaps in the whole country. He is the only person employed to say no and make difficult choices about the spending demands that we all present at the door of the Treasury. Nevertheless, I share the concerns, fears and doubts expressed by colleagues this afternoon about whether the cuts that we are debating will become permanent. I share their fear that 0.5% will become the default setting for our overseas aid spending and that the cuts will become locked in—a permanent withdrawal and a permanent stepping back from the level of commitment that Britain has given overseas among the poorest countries on earth. I share those fears not only for reasons that hon. Members have already outlined, but because I think we are in danger of overlooking just how enormous the effort was that got us to the point where the House of Commons was united on making the commitment to 0.7%, as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has just reminded us.
I am perhaps one of the few Members present who was in the House in 2005. I recall the enormous lobbying efforts made not just by churches, but by trade unions, women’s institutes and groups in all our constituencies. There was demand for that commitment. It required Opposition Front Benchers to work with Government Front Benchers; it required Opposition Back Benchers to work with Government Back Benchers. For me, it represented a high water mark of what can be achieved in this House of Commons when people choose to bury some of their political differences and work together for a cause much bigger than our most immediate political needs.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech. He refers to his longevity in the House. Does he remember how Make Poverty History galvanised national opinion? Crack the Crises is the current successor to that generation, and it is reinforced by younger people. Does he accept that once covid is over and they are able to show what they feel, they will make very clear their opposition to this foolish decision that the Government have made?

Stephen Crabb: My right hon. Friend makes a very strong point, and he is right that there was a popular movement behind the commitment. Nevertheless, it was not universally popular. There were staunch critics inside and outside the House, sections of the press absolutely hated it, and as we went through the financial crisis in 2009 and 2010, the criticism became louder.
As the ripples from that crisis have moved through our politics over the past 11 years, it has become increasingly difficult to keep making the case for investing 0.7% of our GNI in helping the world’s poorest people, but I am proud that we chose to stick to it. Even when we were making very difficult decisions and choices about other aspects of public spending, we took a decision that spending more on the people with the very least, globally, was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do then in the wake of the last financial crisis, and I believe it is still the right thing to do now as we are going through this awful pandemic. Yes, we face a moment in our politics when we have enormous pressures on our public finances—and I made those remarks about the Chancellor of the Exchequer very sincerely at the start—but what is a difficult moment for us fiscally and politically is an absolutely tragic, devastating moment for the poorest people around the world for whom the pandemic has been the cause of another wave of dire poverty and suffering, and that is what we are really debating here this afternoon.
These are difficult issues, and sincere speeches have been made on either side of the argument, but I am very sad that I will not be able to support my Government this afternoon. As I have said, I think the 0.7% commitment we made all those years ago was the right thing to do—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for the role he played—and sticking to it now is still the right thing to do.

Patrick Grady: The Prime Minister brought a very sombre tone to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, trying to convince us that this decision was all a regrettable consequence of the economic impact of the pandemic, but that rings hollow when we remember the glee with which he stood at the Dispatch Box this time last year and announced the abolition of the Department for International Development, when he described aid and DFID as a
“giant cashpoint in the sky”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 670.]
We also remember that, as Foreign Secretary, he quoted Kipling in a Buddhist temple in Myanmar and, when he was a journalist, used the language of “piccaninnies” and “watermelon smiles”.
This is a Prime Minister and a Government who know little and care less about the struggles of poverty, whether at home or abroad, or about the life-saving, life-changing difference that aid can and does make around the world. A bit like the English votes for English laws Standing Orders that we will be debating later today, the aid budget to them is just another part of David Cameron’s legacy that they seem so keen to bury. I think the Prime Minister likes the fact that he is the only living Prime Minister who supports the cut in the aid budget. It is part of this year zero, hard rain approach to the UK consensus that has existed for so long.
That consensus saw every single Member of this House, as has been said, elected on the commitment of 0.7%. It is a consensus that has existed for 20 years, with a target that has been met consistently since 2013. The 0.5% figure is completely arbitrary; 0.7% was calculated by international organisations when it was set in the 1970s. As I have said, the 0.5% figure is completely arbitrary, and we have not heard why it is not 0.4%, 0.6% or 0.3%. It is simply that it sounds good and sounds as though the Government are taking decisive action. That seems to be their attitude to so many aspects of government just now, never mind the impact or the feasibility.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Member is making some very serious points, but does he accept the fact that the UK has set out 0.7% in law? Many countries around the world also commit to 0.7%, but always fall short and do not bother to have a discussion about it.

Patrick Grady: But the UK is now resiling from that. The Government are resiling from it, and they will not even give us a legally binding vote on the decision to resile from the commitment agreed by the entire House. What we consistently hear from the Dispatch Box is about being a soft power superpower and about global leadership, and in a year when the UK should be taking the lead, it is taking a step backwards.
Of course, the decision to cut aid has been shown to be doubly problematic because aid was due to fall anyway. GNI has been falling as a result of the pandemic-related economic contraction anyway, and there would have been tough decisions and funding squeezes, but those would have been predictable and manageable. There is this notion that it is all being paid for by debt, but we could say that about all kinds of aspects of Government spending. All Governments around the world run debts and deficits, and they invest for the future. Aid is an investment in all of our collective futures, but what is happening now in real time is that drastic, sweeping cuts have already been made to get down to this completely arbitrary target of 0.5%, and these will be massively difficult to undo.
Despite today’s attempt to bounce the House into a decision and all these other shenanigans, the Government’s own rhetoric does not add up. The Prime Minister repeatedly says that the covid investment they are making is going to be additional. Well, if it is going to be additional, how can the Government spend 0.5%—they must be spending more than 0.5%—and if it is not additional, then what else is going to be cut? It does not make any sense.
I did not get an answer in the last debate about the concerns raised about UK Aid Match. The public have been donating £1 to certain charities in good faith on the basis that the UK Government would match that, but charities such as Mary’s Meals have now been told that this funding will be delayed, and they will be wondering whether it will ever appear at all. Hundreds of constituents in Glasgow North have contacted me about that since the cut was first announced. That speaks to thousands of activists and organisations across the country.
Aid works best when it is stable and predictable in the long term. There will be no undoing some of the damage caused by the UK Government’s cuts. They  have been hastily and, in some cases, disastrously implemented. A return to 0.7% as soon as possible will at least mitigate some of that damage. I hope that some of the Tories who have been opposed to the Government’s decision so far will continue to show resilience and vote tonight to restore our aid commitment to our poorest brothers and sisters around the world.

Ruth Edwards: I did not come to this House to reduce overseas aid, but then I also did not come here to tell people that they cannot see their parents or their grandchildren, that they had to close the business they have spent years building up, or that they could not get married with their friends and family there to support them. Those are just some of the soul-searching choices that covid has forced on all of us in the past 18 months.
Today’s choice is no different. Voting for the Government’s motion will take £5 billion out of the overseas aid budget. Voting against it will cut £5 billion out of our public services here in the UK or necessitate tax rises on our constituents, many of whom have been living on restrained incomes over the pandemic. It is important that we are honest with our constituents, especially at a time when the NHS has a huge task to get a backlog of millions of operations and treatments down, when so many children have had their education so badly disrupted, and when the police are dealing with a chilling rise in crimes such as domestic violence.
There have been some suggestions in the debate today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) suggested cutting HS2. That would no doubt be very popular in some places, but business leaders throughout the east midlands have made it clear that that would significantly degrade the ability to grow the economy there. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) suggested degrading our cyber-capabilities at a time when our public services, businesses and society are increasingly reliant on digital infrastructure and digital services. There are no easy choices here. There are no cost-free options.
The second point I want to make is that the definition of ODA is very narrow. It excludes much of the support the UK provides overseas from being included in it: £85 million invested to help to develop the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is now being distributed without profit across the world; we are the largest donor to Gavi, immunising 300 million children against infectious diseases; and we provide £350 million a year to the UN’s peacekeeping budget on top of our ODA contributions.
Finally, even with the reduction to 0.5%, the UK will spend more as a percentage of GNI than almost any other major economy—more than the US, Canada and Japan, and well above the OECD average. We will still be the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor in the world. So to talk about Britain as if it is withdrawing from the world or turning its back on people is, in my view, divorced from reality.

Kenny MacAskill: First, like others, I wish to pay tribute to individuals on the Government Benches who have brought us here because of their tenacity. They have shown the courage of their  convictions, convictions the Government claimed to hold but, despite the obfuscation of the Prime Minister, are seeking to renege on. That is why this debate is so welcome. It is an opportunity to rehearse the arguments we have had before. As others have said today, they remain—the principles still remain and the arguments still apply. It is still in our own economic self-interest to ensure that we remain committed to 0.7%. It is environmentally necessary, especially with the spectre of COP26 arising. It is also the case that international aid is a right, not a charity given by us. It is something we need to repay for historical acts.
There are two primary arguments, twin imperatives, that I think apply and those are the arguments that I wish to make. First, there is a moral imperative. This is for humanity. We are all part of the human race and we are required to look after our sisters and brothers wherever they are, whatever nationality or passport they hold—even whatever colour that passport may be. Equally, and as a corollary of that, it is a necessity of public health, because it is in our own self-interest that we carry out these actions.
I will deal first with the moral argument. Many others have quite eloquently made it clear that these cuts will be catastrophic. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that the pandemic is a once-in-a-century event. It will be repeated, as we have seen with the variants. Indeed, we will face other health challenges if the third world continues to face the problems that it does. That is why we have to address the issue. Those in the third world are unable to deal with these things as we are, notwithstanding the challenges we are already facing. We have seen what happened in Africa with AIDS; the consequences for Africa from coronavirus are horrendous. There is therefore a moral imperative that we take actions to ensure that we protect them, as well as us.
That brings me to the public health argument, because if we do not address the issue there, it will come here. As others have mentioned and as I said earlier, we have had the delta variant. We have had other variants, and we will have other variants still, from which our vaccinations will not be capable of protecting us. If it is not the coronavirus outbreak, it will be some other form of ill health that will challenge humanity, and therefore we must take every step possible to ensure that we not only protect ourselves, but protect everybody: by protecting everybody we protect ourselves.
People will march. People will come. People will fall ill and people will be infected. If Border Force cannot keep out drugs, it will not be able to keep out individuals and an illness. It is therefore in our own interest to ensure that we carry out that moral imperative, which is right for the benefit of society and us all. Equally, for our own benefit in our own land and, indeed, individually, we must protect the public health of the country.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who speaks with passion. I do not accept his arguments, but I accept that those people who will vote against the Government tonight do so with genuine concern. I welcome the fact that we have a lot of SNP Members here, we have the Democratic Unionist party here and we have the Liberal Democrats—  ah, but only two Labour Back Benchers have bothered to stay in the debate, and one has just arrived, so I am not so sure about the concerns expressed by those on the Labour Benches.
I welcome one thing that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: the fact that this Parliament is having a vote and a debate on this issue, and that is to the great credit of the Government. They are bringing forward a motion that they may well lose tonight, and that is to their credit. They are letting this Parliament decide on this very important issue.
I think this debate is not particularly about the merits of overseas aid and 0.7%; it is about the state that the economy is in. I cannot tell from sitting here whether the Chancellor is his happy self. He is very popular at the moment because he has been giving money away and helping people, but there is an economic crisis coming down the line, and certainly on these Benches, we should recognise that. That is the reason we should support the cut of £4 billion in overseas aid. If we do not do that, the Chancellor either has to borrow £4 billion more, or he has to tax more, or he has to cut public expenditure. That is actually what the issue is about, and that is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.
I will just touch on what I think is more important with overseas aid: it is the outcome, not the amount of money we are spending. Labour Governments used to say, “We are spending record amounts of money”, but that did not mean they were having record outcomes. When I was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, it was often the small charities without state money that were having the best outcomes.
The great thing about this Government is what they have done with the vaccine and AstraZeneca. The fact that we have given this to the world and that there will be 3 billion doses across the world by the end of next year is tremendous testament to this Government. That is world-leading and it is changing the world, and it is saving millions of people from being seriously ill and dying. That is the sort of thing we should be proud about. We should not be worried about a figure.

Florence Eshalomi: Many right hon. and hon. Members have already spoken about the different areas that will be impacted by the proposed cut to the international aid budget, and I will focus my remarks on a subject that is really important. Last month marked 40 years since the first reported AIDS case and the subsequent discovery of HIV, and although we have made big progress in fighting HIV in the UK and across the world, AIDS remains a leading cause of death for women of reproductive age. Although it is preventable, over 1.5 million people acquired HIV last year, and 690,000 people lost their lives to an AIDS-related illness. The HIV epidemic continues to devastate communities right across the world, yet screening has fallen by 40% in Africa and Asia over the past year.
Ending new HIV transmissions in the UK is a global effort, yet shamefully, our funding of the UN AIDS budget has been reduced by a staggering 83%. As we know only too well, pandemics can only be beaten together. Up until now, the UK has been instrumental in reducing the stigma around this terrible disease and  helping to save the lives of millions of people, and I pay tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust for its new campaign launched today, called “Life really changed”, celebrating people who live with HIV.
I represent Vauxhall, a constituency with a large migrant population and one of the highest rates of HIV prevalence in the country. Now more than ever, if we are truly committed to global Britain, it is so important to step up and meet our responsibilities, not step back. The UK should take a leading global step to help reverse the devastating spread of HIV and AIDS, otherwise how are we supposed to meet our target of zero transmissions by 2030? I hope that Members will reflect on that, and the fact that this is about issues not just in our country, but right across the world. I hope that they will join me in voting against this motion.

Tim Loughton: I welcome the fact that this Government have brought this motion before the House today, but I am afraid that I am going to vote against it, and to restore the 0.7% commitment. I am worried that the new criteria would only have been met in one of the past seven years, and goodness knows when it will be met again. Effectively, we are locking in 0.5% for the foreseeable future. I absolutely acknowledge the huge generosity of the UK taxpayer and the contribution by COVAX and others, but we cannot stop now.
I voted and campaigned for that 0.7% commitment, and was really proud that a Conservative-led Government enshrined it in law. I proudly stood on a manifesto to keep it in 2015, 2017, and 2019. Our 2019 manifesto said that
“We are proud of our peace-building and humanitarian efforts around the world, particularly in war-torn or divided societies, and of our record in helping to reduce global poverty”
and
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.
There were no riders that that was dependent on the state of finances, on whether debt was going up or down, or on how much revenue the Treasury was bringing in. There was no small print, no ifs and no buts, and I believe in standing by manifesto pledges. It would have been even more unsatisfactory if we had not at least had this vote today.
Everyone has talked about difficult decisions. It was specifically to avoid short-term difficult decisions that we enshrined that commitment in law, and crafted a careful formula so that the money went up in good times and down in bad times, as is happening. However, this will be a double whammy, as has been said: funding is going to go down because the economy has contracted, and it is going to go down further because the formula is being changed as well. Covid has impacted severely on many countries whose health systems are far less resilient than ours at dealing with the pandemic, and as we know, global pandemics need globally co-ordinated action, including us all facing the challenges posed by the new strains mutating in far-flung corners of the world. The UK plays a key part in that and must continue to do so, not just with vaccines.
However, this decision is also a false economy. Abruptly pulling projects part way through—pulling funding for the malaria programme in Nigeria, which is supposed to go on until 2024; cutting £48 million from the NHS overseas training scheme, when people are being trained in important posts in developing countries; the £80 million cut to water sanitation in the middle of a pandemic; and the circumstances in Yemen that I mentioned earlier—makes no financial sense and increases uncertainty.
Global Britain is not just about projecting military and diplomatic influence, or pursuing new trading and investment partnerships beyond this continent. Complementary to global Britain is the exercise of soft power, which is hugely important and has proved highly influential and effective for UK plc. Our world-leading commitment to 0.7%, enshrined in law, is an important and, I have to say, very cost-effective part of that. Climate change is a major focus of it—we are chairing COP, for goodness’ sake. What message does this reduction to 0.5% send to the rest of the world? This is a false economy at the wrong time.

Fleur Anderson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The choice that we face today is clear: are we global Britain or little Britain? This is a trap for the unwary. In fact, it goes further than that. This is a deliberate cut in aid, which the Conservative party has been wanting to do for a long time. I share the concern of many Government Members who do not want to be seen as the nasty party. We are the only G7 country to be cutting our aid, so it simply does not have to be done. We do not have to shrug our shoulders and say, “We are in the middle of a pandemic. This is another cost of covid. We just have to get on and do this”. No, this is a deliberate choice about what we do to retain our promises to the world’s poorest people at a time when we are all suffering around the world together. This is not only about how much we are cutting, but how the cuts are being made: not very strategically; very fast for many of the smallest projects which have the best outcomes; and without any impact assessment being done. The figure of 0.7% is not some arbitrary number dreamt up by a Treasury civil servant.
One of the most memorable days of my life was standing on a stage in Edinburgh, introducing Eddie Izzard to a massive crowd of people. Why am I bringing that up now? It is because it was a Make Poverty History rally. People had got up the night before and travelled overnight in coaches from communities across the whole country. They were of all ages and all backgrounds, and had one mission: to make poverty history and see the 0.7% prescribed in law. That happened many years after; there were many years of campaigning that brought the 0.7% into reality. It is not something that we can lose so easily. I share the concerns of many Members that if we lose it today, it will be many years—if ever—until we see the return to 0.7%, which the British public want.
People from across my constituency have written to me saying that they do not agree with the aid cuts. It is a small amount in the whole scale of Government spending—just 1% of our borrowing—and it is very good value for money. It is a false economy and it is  wrong to cut the South Sudanese peace project, which has been built up over many years and is based in trust. This cut will result in devastating results in South Sudan. It has been called a “crushing blow” to the people of South Sudan. Today is an opportunity to restore the cross-party agreement on aid, to restore our ambition and our own influential place in the world, to do the right thing and to vote against these cuts.

Rosie Winterton: I call Catherine West—[Interruption.] We do not seem to have any audio, so let us go to Tobias Ellwood and come back to Catherine West.

Tobias Ellwood: This is a vote about our soft power; a vote on the definition of global Britain; and a test of our political courage to see the bigger international picture and stay committed to our international obligations even when we face difficulties at home. I will not tire of telling the House just how dangerous and complex our world is becoming. A simple question that I put to the Prime Minister, the National Security Adviser, the Defence Secretary and all the respective heads of the armed forces was this: is global instability over the next five to 10 years going to increase or decrease? In every single case, the answer was increase.
We face an unpredictable, uncertain decade, with growing authoritarianism and extremism on the rise, an ever assertive China and Russia, and, of course, climate change increasingly wreaking havoc across the world. The Government acknowledge that in their own integrated review, but hard and soft power are two sides of the same coin, as we learnt to our peril in Afghanistan. Cutting our soft power will have operational, strategic and reputational consequences. The sheer scale of global challenges was acknowledged at the G7 summit, yet here we are debating the reduction in our soft power profile—the only G7 nation to do so. In contrast, China is using its aid programmes as part of a long-term strategy to advance its own global reach. Look at what is happening across Africa and Asia. A new global soft power war is taking place. This, to me, is the face of a cold war that is slowly emerging, but we in the west have yet to wake up to its reality. China is weaponising its immense soft power to significantly advance its influence and reach and to promote its own interpretation of the international rules-based order, and it ensnares dozens and dozens of countries into its sphere of influence. That is why we should not be diminishing our own soft power.
I suspect the Government may succeed in winning the argument today, but they will lose the moral high ground. We claim to be a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation with a global perspective. It is simply not a good look to promote a global Britain agenda, emphasising leadership, responsibility and resolve, but then to cut our overseas aid budget.
I urge the Government to ask what Churchill might say to the House now, given the 1930s feel to the world. Why not articulate to the nation the wider geopolitical uncertainty that we face, the urgency for the west to regroup, and the influential role that Britain could play if we retain our soft power commitments so we can begin to address the progressively dangerous trajectory  our world is now on? I have no doubt that, if the Government did that, the nation would be fully in support.

Brendan O'Hara: May I begin by saying how pleased I am that the Government have finally bowed to pressure and that we in this House are having the vote that we were promised on cutting money to the world’s poorest people? It is absolutely right that we have that vote because every Member of this House must declare his or her position. I fear that, without a meaningful vote, Members on the Government Benches could continue to hide behind crocodile tears or meaningless words of regret, without ever having to display the courage of their convictions and stand up and tell this Government that the decision to take £5 billion away from the world’s poorest people is fundamentally wrong and morally repugnant.
At the end of this debate, we will all have to declare where we stand, and no one can continue in the hope that, by choosing to stay silent, he or she will not be asked to come off the fence. Although this vote has been a long time coming, it does mean that we are all in this House well rehearsed in the arguments. Absolutely no one can pretend that he or she does not know what they are voting for this evening, or that they do not understand the consequences of their actions when they vote. They now know that, if they support the motion, that money is not coming back.
I find it utterly incomprehensible that the Government of one of the richest countries in the world appear hellbent on making the poorest people on this planet even poorer and more susceptible and vulnerable to disease, hunger and the lack of clean water. For them to push this as vigorously as they have, despite every single analysis telling them and us that millions of people will die, simply beggars belief. It is shameful that, if the motion is agreed tonight, it will mark a new low point for a country that pretends or boasts about being a beacon for tolerance, decency and humanity. This is the test of that vote.
As I have said before, this country has a moral obligation to help those in what we now call the developing world, not least because this country is in no small way responsible for the situation in which they now find themselves. The UK—Great Britain—grew rich and powerful on the backs of the world’s poor. We invaded, conquered, divided and plundered, leaving behind an impoverished wasteland. It is about time that this country woke up to its moral responsibility to assist those we abandoned to live with the consequences of British imperialism. We should not be running away from that responsibility. Those on the Government Benches have to accept that that is the consequence of their action tonight.

Rosie Winterton: We now go back to Catherine West.

Catherine West: What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who is wearing a navy suit and a navy tie with white dots, just like our favourite football manager, Mr Southgate.
I am very proud to stand on my promise today, which was laid out in the manifesto of each of the political parties in the House, for the UK Government to spend 0.7% of gross national income on the world’s poorest. The UK’s economy and health have been ravaged by covid. In my local authority area alone, covid has led to many, many deaths and the loss of jobs. Haringey borough has one of the highest numbers of workers on furlough and at risk of joblessness in the autumn, and child poverty is on the increase. However, my constituents care deeply about the work that the UK does around the globe, especially in Africa. They do not wish to see so many girls lacking in education; they do not wish to see more infants die from malaria; and they do not wish to see Daesh prosper from the withdrawal of important civil society programmes that promote stability throughout north Africa.
The decision we take today will affect the UK’s regional universities as well. For example, it could inhibit the important work that is done to strengthen health systems around the globe by doctors and nurses working through the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, or the important scientific research by Durham University on the making of insecticide-treated anti-malarial bed nets. The Prime Minister claimed to support British science but the motion suggests the opposite.
In 2021, 23 more billionaires reached The Sunday Times rich list. Inequality is worsening day by day and the Government’s proposal fails to address the grotesque inequality around the globe. If I thought that, if I agreed with the Government today, they would instead fund summer schools for children in my constituency, reinstate the 5,000 mental health beds that have been withdrawn since 2010, or fund the capital needed for social homes and housing services for those in housing need, I would change my mind. Instead, the motion is the beginning of more austerity, along with the £20 cut to universal credit recipients, the potential breaking of the triple lock for pensioners and further cuts to local government.
The past 10 years brought the country to its knees and weakened health systems and society, so when covid reached our shores, we fell like flies. When will we learn that the Government must act to protect and build defences, or we will suffer even more?

Anthony Mangnall: I thank the Government for being courteous in having the Prime Minister present and the Chancellor respond to this debate. They have been courteous in holding a vote at long last, but I am afraid that is where my thanks end.
As we have heard in the course of this debate, the 0.7% target was not only a manifesto commitment made by every political party in this place but a commitment to the world’s poorest. It was a commitment to join in force with other nations around the world. Many Members have said, “We didn’t do anything—no other country followed us” but Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg all now fulfil the 0.7% target, France is set to hit the 0.7% target next year, and the United States of America has uplifted its spending by $16 billion. We say that we did not have influence; I beg to differ.
Today’s debate is really about the fight for parliamentary engagement. In 2015, this House voted for the International Development Act, which enshrined the right to make sure that we did not make short-term decisions and that when the years were good the spending went up and when the years were bad the spending went down. That is something we should have kept in mind before we made today’s decision. Instead, we have been offered a mirage. What looks like a compromise is something that will never be reached. Despite the arbiters of the OBR, the spending decisions on the issue will still be made by the Treasury. This announcement comes before a spending review, so we do not know how much is going to be spent on social care, health or education. We do not know what the Government’s financial commitments will be in the years to come. We are therefore being led down the garden path, and by that I am appalled. Just as with Gordon Brown’s checklist to join the euro, we will never meet these targets.
The Government’s proposal is a short-termist approach. Like many Members, I have seen the value of what we spend in foreign aid, whether that is on women’s education, AIDS programmes, deradicalisation or climate change. I believe passionately that the UK leads by example in those policy areas, so I will not apologise for voting against the Government tonight. I will not apologise for the fact that I will be standing up on behalf of the NGOs and experts who are based in the UK but operate around the world and who lead by example and help other organisations to follow suit. For that, I offer no apology, but I remind Members of this House that we make an extraordinary impact in the world and to shirk from it for a short-term decision is something that we should all be appalled by.

Christine Jardine: I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for an excellent speech.
Twenty-two years ago I visited a hospital in sub-Saharan Africa where a woman, who was about the same age as I was then, was being treated for AIDS. When I say “treated”, I stretch the definition to breaking point. She was receiving aspirin, and I felt totally helpless. That visit was part of a professional trip to write about the work being done by an international Christian charity, but it was part of a much more important journey for me.
My once carefully protected eyes had long been opened to the poverty in the world, but on that trip and others I came to realise the significance of the international aid that the UK Government provide, both in creating a stable international community and in making a real difference to the lives of people who need it most.
The Prime Minister highlighted the work this Government are doing as part of the global response to the pandemic, and yes they are, but these cuts are being made at a time when Ministers have often said that no country is safe until the virus is under control in every country. The same applies to international aid.
The world is in the grip of insecurity and democracies are under threat. Long-term strategic support is key to building resilience and capacity in places such as Myanmar. By reducing our support, power vacuums will be filled by countries, such as Russia and China, with very different agendas from our own. China has 500 Confucius  Institutes across 140 countries, with plans for 1,000 more, and it is increasing its global presence through education and culture as part of a strategy of having boots on the ground, education and soft power.
And where are we? Withdrawing from the international stage. Cutting our international aid budget leaves the British Council some £10 million short, which has led to 20 offices being closed. How do we have a global Britain if we blunt the very tool that delivers and embodies that ideal?
Instead of saying, “Look at what we’re doing. Isn’t it great?”, what we see in the world around us should drive us to do more, underlining how important it is. It should make us determined to fight to save children from starvation and girls from being abused. It should drive us to help protect and enhance their health, their rights and their democracies, because we have the ability.
The Government reassure us that this is a temporary measure, but their definition is, frankly, the height of cynicism and heartlessness.

Layla Moran: My hon. Friend will have spent time knocking on doors in Chesham and Amersham, as I did. Is not her characterisation of the new Tory party exactly why many of those voters said they were turning away from the Tories in that election and voting Lib Dem instead?

Christine Jardine: Yes, it is, as we have heard other hon. Members say today. Those same people will know that more than 2 billion people in this world do not have access to clean water, and cutting aid will make it more difficult to change that. The rate of HIV infection across the world remained at 1.7 million people in 2019 alone. The leading killer of women of reproductive age is AIDS.
When I visited that hospital 22 years ago, I felt helpless. I feel the same today, but my Government can help. This Government can help, and this afternoon I will be voting to remind them that they should.

Mark Harper: I have listened very carefully to the speeches in this debate, and many of them focused on our manifesto promise on aid spending. That is entirely correct but, as I said in one of my interventions, we also made a commitment not to borrow money for day-to-day spending and to reduce our debt burden. All those commitments have been made more challenging by the global pandemic we have faced. The Treasury’s motion, which I will support, as I hope all my colleagues will, is an attempt to deal with the challenge of the pandemic and deliver on all our manifesto commitments in a way that reflects the reality of what has happened over the past year.
I have also heard many Members talk about the borrowing that we have had to make over the last year. I know the Chancellor and I am very proud of that borrowing, because it has helped us get through an incredibly difficult year, but one-off borrowing for a crisis is not the same as ongoing day-to-day spending. I am surprised by many of my colleagues who talk about the £5 billion a year that it would cost to replace this spending as if £5 billion was not a lot of money.
I can remember many difficult conversations when I was a Minister, and indeed when I was Government Chief Whip, about far smaller sums of money, sometimes involving many of the colleagues I have heard talk about £5 billion as if it were nothing. I am afraid that we are going to have to get used to the fact that there are certain realities in the world—that money we spend has to be paid for, and it either has to be borrowed or financed from taxation.
One of the problems we now have with the borrowing we have had to make over the last year is that we are very vulnerable to increases in inflation or interest rates. I heard someone say we are living in an era of low interest rates. We do not know how long that is going to last, and a 1% rise in inflation and interest rates would cost us twenty-five thousand million pounds, five times the amount we are arguing about today. Those are the realities that not just the Chancellor but all of us in this Parliament, and particularly those of us in the governing party, have to grapple with.
My final point is just to say to my colleagues that I fear that this debate is going to be repeated many times as we move through the comprehensive spending review. We are all going to have to face very difficult challenges. Governing is about choosing. It is about setting priorities for what we think is important. This is important, but so is keeping the fiscal measures on balance. All of them are important, and I am glad that the Chancellor has brought forward the measures that he has today.

Rosie Winterton: I am sorry that we have not been able to get more speakers in, but we now have to move to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves.

Rachel Reeves: The Government say that global Britain is at the heart of how we engage with the world, but this move to unilaterally cut overseas aid is a direct attack on what it means to be global Britain. It is a decision that will reduce our power, reduce our influence in the world and undermine our security here at home. At this moment perhaps more than any other, we should be looking to project our power and influence for good around the world, to create change in our national interest but in the global interest, too.
I am proud—we should all be proud, in this House and across our great nations—of what we have achieved together through overseas aid. Together, we have pushed polio to the verge of eradication. Together, we have improved water and sanitation for more than 1.5 million people. Together, we have reduced maternal and infant mortality, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about. And together, we have ensured that girls in the poorest places in the world can go to school, as we all take it for granted that our daughters and granddaughters can go to school.
Yet today the Government seek to undo that great progress. Instead of being a global leader, this Government seek to retreat on the international stage. I can see the understandable discomfort that that is  causing hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches, who know the consequences of this decision and the short-sightedness of what the Prime Minister has said and what I fear the Chancellor will go on to say.
I commend in particular the contributions of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who advised colleagues to beware the traps set for the unwary; my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who said that this motion is just not who we are as a people; and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said, “When it is a choice between lives and money, I choose lives.”
The reason there has been a consensus from five previous Prime Ministers across both parties, including the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), on the importance of the 0.7% commitment is that the case for overseas aid both expresses the moral responsibilities that we have and is firmly in the national interest.

Jim Shannon: One of the NGOs that I would be involved with is the HALO Trust, the organisation that clears mines, unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive devices. If it comes to giving money to one group, there is a group that saves lives, as the hon. Lady refers to.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he speaks powerfully of what he has seen. What has guided former Prime Ministers and Ministers is a moral compass, and I ask the Chancellor what moral compass guides the Prime Minister and Ministers today, as we cut the lifelines of support, and in the midst of a global pandemic as well. For several decades, we have recognised that the world is increasingly interdependent, and that overseas aid helps tackle poverty, infectious diseases and climate change, and reduces conflict, terrorism and the need for people to flee their own countries and seek refuge elsewhere. The Chancellor himself made that point in 2015, arguing that
“this Government’s commitment on international aid is a tangible example of…leadership”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 793.]
Where is that leadership today?
Crucially, overseas aid helps us respond to pandemics. Covid cannot be eliminated anywhere if it is not eliminated everywhere. These cuts will impede the ability of some of the poorest countries in the world to mobilise their public health systems and roll out this vaccine effectively. What good does that do any of us here? Until covid is under control globally, the risk is that this virus mutates and comes back to Britain and threatens all of us, including those who have already been double vaccinated. The Chancellor knows full well that our country’s commitments are as a proportion of our gross national income, and that is right; it means that as our economy grows our generosity as a country grows, but as our economy shrinks so does our generosity to those in the poorest parts of the world. That is right and it happens automatically, without the cuts being proposed on top.  As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) puts it, the “simplicity” of the 0.7% commitment is
“built into the formula: our payments go up in times of plenty and fall back when our economy is stretched.”
But with a 30% reduction—that is what we are talking about today—in just one year, never has our aid budget been cut so savagely, so suddenly and by so much.
Let us be very clear about the tests for returning to 0.7% of GNI spent on overseas aid. The second test the Chancellor set out is on our debt to GDP ratio falling. The OBR has forecast that that will not be met next year or the year after; at the very earliest it will be met in the financial year 2024-25. Let us look at the first test. In the past 30 years, the current budget balance test being proposed by the Chancellor today has been met only five times, and only for one year under a Conservative Government. But the test proposed by the Chancellor goes further than that, because it does not just refer to a “current budget balance”; it refers to a “sustainable current budget balance”. In the past 30 years , that has been met only under a Labour Government.
So if the Chancellor’s small-print conditions are applied to the latest OBR forecasts, we will not be achieving a current budget surplus in the whole of the forecast period. These are not tests to go back to 0.7% of GNI spent on overseas aid; they are tests to stop that ever happening under a Conservative Government again. So let us be clear about what we are voting for. If we vote for the Chancellor’s proposal today, this will not just be for a year; it will hang over us for as long as the Conservatives are in government.
If the Chancellor is serious about saving money—and I believe in value for money in every pound of taxpayers’ money spent—why did he happily sign off cheques for £2.6 million on a media briefing room that will not properly used and £200 million on a vanity yacht project to sell global Britain around the world—why not invest that money on overseas aid instead? There was £37 billion on a test and trace system that does not even work, and £2 billion on crony contracts for friends and donors of the Conservative party. What exactly does it say about the priorities of this Government? Why is the overseas aid budget being singled out for cuts by this Government? It is because this is ideological; it is not about value for money.
If this cut goes through this evening and the House votes for it, it will diminish Britain. It will reduce our power and influence for good in the world, and it will undermine our security here at home too. This is not just about how much aid we give overseas. It is about the country that we are and the country that we want to be. Whether a Government or a football team, when someone is on the world stage, how they conduct themselves and whether they lead by example really matters. Many hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—and on the Government Benches too—know in their heart and in their head that what the Government propose is profoundly wrong. They know full well that it breaks the proud promises that we all made at the election only 18 months ago, not just during crisis but for as long as the Conservatives are in government, so I urge hon. and right hon. Members to reject the motion and do what they know is right for  the poorest people in the world, and to honour the proud commitments that we all made in the national interest.

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their passionate and principled contributions to today’s debate. Given the short time available, I shall highlight some of the powerful speeches that we have heard in support of the Government’s motion, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Of course, I am disappointed that not all my colleagues feel able to support the Government today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). No one can doubt the sincere commitment to this cause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for his kind words about my career before I came to the House.
There were particularly thoughtful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), both of whom highlighted the explicit provisions in the 2015 Act that envisaged these circumstances arising. I can give my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells my commitment to the £22 billion, in which I believe very strongly, as does the Prime Minister. We are determined to create a science superpower in this country.
As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made a powerful speech about our promises—all our promises, not just some. While the Opposition might not be concerned with promises about managing the public finances and looking after people’s money responsibly, Government Members always will be.
May I pay tribute to the Members who have worked with the Government? I am grateful for their constructive co-operation over the past few weeks in finding what I believe is a genuine compromise to bring the House together so that we can support a policy that commands, I think, the broad acceptance not just of this place but of the British people. Those right hon. and hon. Members include my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Theo Clarke), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I am very grateful to them for all their engagement.
What we are asking the House to vote for today is a road map for returning to 0.7%. That road map reaffirms our values while recognising the reality that covid has caused severe damage to our public finances. It puts beyond doubt the fact that the reduction in the aid budget is temporary; it defines a reasonable set of tests for when we will return to 0.7%; and it makes those tests objective and verifiable, based on data, not dates, measured not by the Government ourselves, but by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

Peter Kyle: Does the Chancellor accept that in areas of instability and potential social decline, if we withdraw aid and support people are more likely to end up needing the support of our military? We know that for a fact, because we have had to give that support a lot in the past. Does he not accept the principle that in areas that are extremely volatile it is much, much cheaper to the British purse to provide support via aid workers than to send the military in with hardware and put our soldiers on the frontline, often in danger?

Rishi Sunak: It is not an either/or. This Government are doing both. We are one of the largest donors to the UN peacekeeping operations and that is why we are making a difference in countries across the globe, not just through our ODA budget but through all the other ways we express global leadership.

John Hayes: The Chancellor is right to say that the countries with big hearts also need clear heads, so will he confirm that, with the roadmap he has set out today and the proposals before the House, we will still be spending 20% more on overseas aid than we were when Labour was last in government?

Rishi Sunak: If my numbers are right, as a percentage of GDP we were for the last few years spending double what Labour ever spent when it was in office, and my right hon. Friend is right about what we will be doing even at this reduced level.
Today’s approach is a pragmatic approach to meeting our commitments to the world’s poorest today and to have the secure fiscal foundations we need to meet those commitments for decades to come. We should be proud of what UK overseas aid means to millions of the world’s poorest people. It means tens of millions of girls around the world getting a better education. It means food parcels stamped with a Union Jack arriving in famine stricken countries such as Syria and Somalia. It means wind turbines, solar panels and hydroelectric dams generating clean energy in developing countries. I am proud, as I know the whole House will be proud, of the extraordinary good this country is doing around the world.

John Redwood: I am looking forward to this answer. Will the Chancellor remind the House, given that we are rightly keen to save as many lives as possible, that this country has given a great gift to the world with many free vaccines and pioneered the cheapest and one of the best vaccines to save lives all around the world?

Rishi Sunak: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to that in a minute.
I am proud, too, of our response to last year’s economic crisis—the deepest recession this country has ever seen. In total, we have provided hundreds of billions of pounds to protect jobs, keep businesses afloat and help families to get by. That was the right approach, but we should be clear-eyed: covid has severely damaged our public finances. We have the highest level of borrowing since world war two, national debt of £2 trillion and rising, and debt expected to peak at 100% of GDP. If we want to  continue to meet our commitments in the future, both at home and overseas, we must act now to rebuild our fiscal resilience.

Chris Matheson: This is all well and good, but the Government had already taken the decision to scrap the Department for International Development before covid came along. That is how committed they were to international aid.

Rishi Sunak: On the contrary; this Government have brought a coherence and a strategic symmetry to our approach to international development and foreign policy, which is improving how we project our influence and effectiveness around the world.
I have heard that this is the only difficult thing that we are doing, but that is simply not true. We have had to build fiscal resilience and have asked businesses to pay more tax. We have frozen the personal income tax allowance, taken a targeted approach to public sector pay and, yes, we also had to take the difficult decision to temporarily reduce our aid budget. This decision follows a path that Parliament explicitly envisaged when it enshrined the 0.7% target in law. Section 2(3) of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 clearly foresaw the fiscal circumstances that might mean the target could not be met. And let us be honest: if that test is not being met in the aftermath of the worst economic shock in 300 years, surely it never will.
This decision is categorically not a rejection of our global responsibilities. The UK will spend over £10 billion this year on overseas development. According to the latest figures, that is more as a proportion of national income than all but two of the G7 countries—more than Japan, Canada, Italy and the United States, and much more than the average of the 29 countries in the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee.
Our spending on humanitarian causes goes far beyond just our ODA budget. We have the fourth biggest defence and security budget in the world and the third largest diplomatic network. On average, we contribute nearly £500 million a year to the United Nations peacekeeping budget. We use our trade policy to reduce poverty, with developing countries benefiting from tariff savings of up to £1 billion a year. It is why we are working with the G7 to deliver the clean and green infrastructure financing initiative. With UK Government support, this year 1.5 billion people around the world will be vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, provided at no profit whatsoever.
There is no question about our commitment to overseas aid. The only question is when we return to the 0.7% target. The motion puts beyond all doubt that we will do so once two clear objective tests have been met: our national debt is falling and we are no longer borrowing for day-to-day spending. Those tests are in line with the approach set out in our manifesto and at the Budget. They are practical and realistic.
If the House votes against the motion today, it is an effective vote. We will return, irrespective of the circumstances, to 0.7% next year. Instead of voting for responsibility, the House would in effect be voting to say that no circumstances could ever justify a move.
I know that a deep sense of conscience underpins the view that the amount we spend on overseas aid is a moral issue. Many hon. Members will know the words:
“Charity is patient, is kind.”
I think of those words and I share that sense of conscience. That is why we are maintaining the target, not abolishing it; why we are setting out the conditions, not obscuring them, and why we are basing the conditions independently—
Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).

The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 298.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Written Ministerial Statement relating to Treasury Update on International Aid, which was made to the House on Monday 12 July.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Rishi Sunak: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recognise the passion and conviction with which Members who voted both for   and against the Government’s motion spoke in favour of the 0.7% target. To me, that is the salient point. While not every Member felt able to vote for the Government’s compromise, the substantive matter of whether we remain committed to the 0.7% target not just now but for decades to come is clearly one of significant unity in this House. Today’s vote has made that commitment more secure for the long term while helping the Government to fix the problems with our public finances and continue to deliver for our constituents.
I commit to the House that I, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will continue to work with all hon. Members on how we can continue to be a global leader in helping the world’s poorest and on how we can improve our aid spending, targeting it most effectively and ensuring that it gets to those who need it most. Having now provided the House with an effective vote on this matter, the Government will move forward with the planned approach.

Lindsay Hoyle: I now suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you can help us. In the debate after the next one, we are discussing the regulations that the Government have brought forward that will deprive thousands of people who work in our care homes of the right to work and not give them any compensation. The Government said on 22 June that alongside the statutory instrument they were laying an explanatory memorandum together with an impact assessment. The impact assessment has not been laid. Yesterday I raised this issue and referred to the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care had written to the Library to say, “The impact assessment has not been laid yet. We will be laying it at the earliest opportunity.” That was at midday yesterday. I have recently spoken to people in the Vote Office and they say that they have now been informed by the Department that this impact assessment will not be laid before the debate. So either it does not exist and there was a fault when it was asserted that it did, or it has been suppressed because it does not fit in with the Government’s agenda. In any event, is it open to you to put pressure on the Government to withdraw that item of business until we have an impact assessment?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. No, I cannot ask the Government to withdraw the motion and the business statement that has been agreed to, but I do share his disappointment that the document has not been made available before the debate after next. I hope that it will be fed back from those on the Treasury Bench that the Minister should address the issue in her opening remarks in the debate.

William Wragg: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have recently been on a four-colleague call with the Care Minister where she confirmed to us that the said impact assessment would not be made available until after the debate. That strikes me as a rather back-to-front approach. I just provide that clarity to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that clarity. It is what we rather suspected, and what I was trying to hint at, in that it was not going to be ready but the Minister would address that in her remarks when she opens the debate.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given what my hon. Friend has said, it is available and it could be made available immediately, but the Government are choosing not to make it available until after the event.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has reinforced his point that if it is available it could be made available before the debate. We understand that it is not going to be, but, as I say, we will pass back the very strong feeling that the Minister should address why that is the case in her opening remarks.

Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 23 June 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 2)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill

[Relevant document: Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, Special Report of Session 2019-21: The Armed Forces Bill, HC 1281.]
Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1 - Duty of care to service personnel

‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in section 1(6) of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the duty of care standard under subsection (1) before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year—
(a) prepare a duty of care update, and
(b) include the duty of care update in the Armed Forces Covenant annual report when it is laid before  Parliament.
(4) The duty of care update is a review about the continuous process and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—
(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;
(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel; and
(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) In preparing a duty of care update the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—
(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;
(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct; and
(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.
(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.
(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”
This new clause will require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephanie Peacock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—
(a) there is formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or
(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include recommendations of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—
(a) the restoration of ranks,
(b) pensions, and
(c) other forms of financial compensation.
(4) The report must include a review of the cases of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders register.
(5) The report must include discharges and forced resignations back to at least 1955.
(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.
(8) In this section, “sexuality or gender identity” includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.”
This new clause requires the government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.
New clause 3—Armed Forces Federation—
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 333, insert the following new clauses—
“333A Armed Forces Federation
(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—
(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and
(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.
(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.
(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.
(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.
333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or
(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—
(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;
(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;
(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and
(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.””
This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
New clause 4—Armed Forces Mental Health Care review—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing a review of the mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the—
(a) Defence Medical Services,
(b) Departments of Community Mental Health and the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and
(c) Reserves Mental Health Programme.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for serving personnel.
Amendment 1,page4,line27, clause 7, at end insert—
“guidance under subsection (3)
(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to require specific consent by the Attorney General to be tried in court martial when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and
(b) if the Attorney General has not granted such consent, guidance under (3)(a) shall provide that charges as set out in section 4A(a) to be tried in civilian court only.”
This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.
Amendment 7,page16,line1, clause 8, leave out subsection 5
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before issuing or revising any guidance under section 343AE relating to the duties imposed by sections 343AB(1), 343AC(1), and 343AD(1).
Amendment 8,page17,line34, clause 8, leave out “consult” and insert “obtain consent from”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before widening the scope of the duties in sections 343AA(1), 343AB(1), 343AC(1) and 343AD(1) when exercising this power in devolved contexts.
Amendment 2,page18,line28, clause 8, at end insert—
“343AG Section 343AF: report
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed, and thereafter must make a report at least once in every calendar year.
(2) The report in subsection (1) shall set out how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.
(3) Any report published under subsection (1) after the initial report made 3 months after this Act is passed must include—
(a) a statement detailing how the powers granted through section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) have been used since the last report was issued,
(b) a review of the relevance of the listed bodies and functions in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in relation to the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report under section 343A of AFA 2006, and
(c) the outcome of a consultation conducted by the Secretary of State with the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group on the bodies and functions listed in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in regard to their appropriateness and relevance as part of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.

Stephanie Peacock: Labour stands firmly behind our armed forces and our brave service personnel who serve our country. It is a privilege to be speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition on this important legislation. From their work across the country on the frontline of the pandemic to operations around the world, Britain’s armed forces deserve our admiration and gratitude. My granddad, who would have been 100 this year, served with the RAF during the second world war. Nearly all of us will have loved ones whose service we look back on with pride, and I am sure that we would all hope they were given the support they needed and deserved during their service and afterwards.
Labour supports our armed forces and the principles behind the Bill. It presents a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to bring about meaningful improvements to the lives of our service personnel and veterans and their families, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations—local authorities, service charities and voluntary organisations—that have contributed to this legislation.
It is the duty of any and every Government to look after their people, and there are welcome steps in the Bill, which we support—the creation of a legal duty to the principles of the covenant, and the implementation of key elements of the Lyons review—but we believe the Government can and should go further. Our forces communities cannot afford for this Bill to become a missed opportunity, and that is why Labour has put forward our amendments in good faith to strengthen the Bill and offer the support and protection that are needed by many of our service personnel.
Turning first to amendment 1, currently serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape cases that are committed in the UK by service personnel are prosecuted in the service justice system, the SJS, not the civilian courts. Victims and their families often do not get the justice they deserve, and quite often sexual abuse cases are tried as “disgraceful conduct” and other service offences, meaning those who commit the offences are not put on the sex offender register.

Colum Eastwood: I greatly welcome the shadow Minister’s commitment to the rule of law in amendment 1. Almost 50 years ago 14 unarmed civil rights marchers were murdered on the streets of Derry by the Parachute Regiment. Five of those victims were shot by David Cleary, otherwise known as soldier F. For 50 years he has been granted anonymity; now the Government want to give him an amnesty. Does the shadow Minister agree that nobody—none of the perpetrators involved in murder during our troubles—should be granted an amnesty?

Stephanie Peacock: The Labour party is committed to the Stormont House agreement and the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made it clear in Northern Ireland last week that the rule of law must be central to our approach to legacy in Northern Ireland.
Returning to amendment 1, last week I met with the charity Salute Her at Forward Assist, who shared with me statistics showing that up to six out of 10 women serving in the military have experienced some form of sexual harassment or abuse. This is an issue that disproportionately affects women of lower ranks; it is a harrowing issue, and these women deserve real justice. This amendment would ensure the Armed Forces Bill provides appropriate support, protection and access to justice for our forces. Serious crimes will be tried in civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.
Moving on to amendment 2, a significant part of this Bill relates to the armed forces covenant and the introduction of a legal duty for public bodies to have regard to its principles. I am proud that my local authority, Barnsley Council, is not only one of the leading signatories of the covenant but has achieved the gold award in the defence employer recognition scheme. More needs to be done to end the postcode lottery of support and introducing a legal duty in this Bill is a welcome step, but we believe it can go further not only in the duties themselves—currently limited to healthcare, housing and education—but in who they apply to as well.
While the Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, central Government are not included. The Government are notable by their omission from these legal responsibilities; they should show leadership in at least holding themselves to the same standard they are asking others to follow. Our amendment would place the same legal responsibilities for the armed forces covenant on central Government as their current drafting requires of local authorities. Twelve of the UK’s leading military charities wrote an open letter to MPs last week sharing their concern that the new legal duties in the Bill do not cover the “full range of issues” currently affecting our armed forces community. They are urging the Government to widen the Bill’s scope to make sure that greater protections are given in areas such as employment, pensions, social care and immigration. I hope that the Government will today listen to those charities and support our amendment.
Through new clause 1, we are calling on the Ministry of Defence to recognise its duty of care to British service personnel who are subject to legal action arising from overseas operations. It simply cannot be right that so many families have been put through the trauma of long-running investigations with little to no legal or welfare support from the MOD. Labour repeatedly attempted to resolve this issue with amendments to the Bill that became the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, but Ministers did not accept this important duty as part of that Bill. We are asking the Government to reconsider this issue and ensure that they deliver on their responsibilities to members of our armed forces.
New clause 2 would establish a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces because of their sexuality, and to consider appropriate forms of compensation. The institutional and cultural discrimination against the LGBT+ community is a shameful feature of our not-so-distant past and remains a serious issue today. I am proud that the last Labour Government abolished the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces in 2000, and I believe the Government’s new policy of medal restoration for those veterans is a very welcome first step. But it simply cannot be right that so little further work has been undertaken to seek to right this wrong, so we ask Ministers now to consider the restoration of ranks and pensions, and other forms of compensation to appropriately honour those who have served our country with courage and distinction, irrespective of their sexuality.
New clause 3 is calling on the Government to create a representative body for our armed forces. It has been clear for some time that the armed forces need independent advice. There are many issues on which members of the armed forces need representation, in matters such as welfare and pay, which is why Labour is calling for a representative body for the armed forces, to work with the MOD to further support service personnel. The US and Australia already have similar models embedded in military command structures, and the model is used successfully in this country in the police force, through the Police Federation. Our armed forces give their lives for us. Ministers should seize this opportunity to give them a real voice.
Finally, new clause 4 calls on the Government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for service personnel. The Government are currently missing a range of targets on mental health care for people who have served. Forces personnel face a wait of 37 days for a face-to-face appointment to be offered through the transition, intervention and liaison service. The target is 14 days, so that is a wait of more than double the target time period. They then face another unacceptable wait for treatment. The latest figures available to us show an average wait time for treatment of 70 days, which is a jump from 57 days in 2018-19. After six months of having left the service, veterans then access mental health support through the responsibilities of the NHS, which of course face serious pressures and considerable waiting times. Ministers cannot ignore this issue or seek to outsource accountability and responsibility on matters such as these. Action needs to be taken nationally to deliver, and we believe the review established by new clause 4 would form a key basis for turning around the crisis in mental health services.
There are welcome steps in this Bill, but in delivering on the special responsibility we have to our armed forces personnel, we believe the Government can and should go further with this legislation. Labour believes that the armed forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between the Government and our service communities. This legislation is an opportunity to strengthen and improve it and, through Labour’s amendments, to go further and ensure that we tackle all areas of disadvantage.

James Sunderland: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), the new shadow Minister, and I wish her well in her new role. I also empathise with much of what she said this afternoon, but of course the Government position is quite different, and I will explain why.
As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am probably more familiar with this Bill than most, and it is a good Bill. As before, with the armed forces covenant, I welcome the fact that it pays due regard to the placeholder, recognises rightful outcomes, and accurately reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces, and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how this is to be provided.
I note, with the Minister in his place, that prescriptive performance targets are still absent from the statutory guidance, but it may just be impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I just do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations, so I await that with interest.
I want to talk to just a handful of the amendments, if I may. New clause 1, as mentioned, is on the duty of care. It would require the Secretary of State to
“establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations”.
While this duty of care is one of the most important aspects of the Bill, and of the armed forces of course, applying a one-size-fits-all approach could lead to difficulties  in the future. Tailored welfare and mental support for those who have served is already very effective and is already offered to all personnel.
New clause 2, on dismissal for sexuality, requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces because of their sexuality or perceived sexuality, and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. As before, while there is no validation of this practice and the Government do see it as an absolute wrong, the Government have resisted this clause at this point in time, as indeed they did in Committee, owing to its complicating the MOD’s efforts to address at pace this injustice. However, for the record, this does need to be done in due course, and I believe that the Government will do it.
New clause 3, on a representative armed forces body, would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, that would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. But, once again, the Government have not been persuaded that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested. The interests of armed forces personnel, of which I was one, are already ably represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of all service complaints.
I would talk to some more amendments, but actually my opinion of all of them is the same as it is of the new clauses: while they are laudable on their own, there are good reasons why the Government are resisting every one—reasons outlined at length in Committee, and indeed during the Select Committee stage. In the interests of time, let me just say that this Bill has been subject to repeated scrutiny at various stages. It is a good Bill, it remains fit for purpose in terms of what can be achieved now, and I will be voting it through tonight.

Carol Monaghan: I start by paying tribute to members of the armed forces both for the work they do in ordinary times and for the work they have done over the last 15 or 16 months with their support for services during the pandemic. I also want to pay tribute to the organisations that have taken time to engage with Members during the passage of this Bill to ensure that we are fully informed about as many areas and as wide a range of issues as possible.
The Bill started its passage with Members on all sides keen to see real change for personnel in the armed forces. From that start with the very best of intentions, we have ended up with a disappointing conclusion, with non-controversial amendments being rejected without, I believe, any real attempt to make meaningful progress. We therefore find ourselves at this stage with a Bill that will make very little, if any, practical difference to those who serve. Of course, I do hope that I am proved wrong about this, but I have my suspicions that if, in a year’s time, we were to ask personnel whether they knew of any difference this has made, the answer unfortunately would be negative.
As I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, it lacks the punch required. The Bill’s commitment to the armed forces covenant falls far short of what it ought to be. Many stakeholders, including the Royal British Legion, have argued that the Bill should  go further in strengthening the covenant in law, but many other areas have been missed out, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel, pay, Department for Work and Pensions issues, and proper representation for serving personnel.
For veterans who have suffered humiliation, dismissal and loss of pensions because of their sexuality, the Bill simply does not deliver. The Armed Forces Minister has previously spoken of his intention to make real progress in this area, so I look forward to working with him to deliver a just outcome for those individuals who have been affected in that way. This is an example of an issue that the Bill fails to address, and the SNP will be supporting Labour’s new clause 2 on that.
The Armed Forces Minister has previously given us assurances on service accommodation, but accommodation issues are raised year on year by serving personnel. The recent National Audit Office report on single living accommodation describes a litany of neglect. Accommodation for families also falls far short of the standards we expect. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill as it stands will not strengthen the accommodation offer. The SNP’s series of modest amendments, Nos. 3 to 6, asks that service accommodation match the standards set for civilian housing. This should be a matter of straightforward agreement across the House. We should not be asking service personnel, or indeed their families, to put up with accommodation that would be deemed unacceptable to non-military families. If we are talking about non-detriment, basic housing standards would be a good place to start. I am not expecting the Government to accept the SNP amendments on that today, but I hope this issue can be properly considered in the weeks and months ahead.
The SNP has for a long time advocated a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look at the examples of many of our NATO allies, which benefit from armed forces representative bodies. We are used to hearing arguments from Members on the Government Benches about how it could not possibly work, because it could undermine the chain of command or encourage strike action. However, an armed forces representative body would be a federation like the Police Federation. It would not allow strikes and it would not impact on the chain of command, but it would give a voice to our personnel that, at the moment, is sadly lacking. I am therefore pleased to see Labour bringing an amendment forward again. If we are looking to ensure that the covenant is properly fulfilled, such an organisation would substantively carry out that role. It could advocate on housing, pay, terms and conditions and so on. However, I think the real reason for the Government’s resistance is that it would actually give our armed forces and veterans a voice.
The time and effort spent on the Bill should have been an opportunity to significantly improve our offerings to the armed forces, but I am doubtful. Without the ability to enforce—without the teeth the Bill needs—the Bill will sadly fall short. If this is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity, many of us will be disappointed, but the SNP will continue to engage with the Government and the Armed Forces Minister in the hope that we can make a real change for those who are serving.

David Simmonds: The substance of the Bill before the House today is access to justice and welfare and our wider responsibilities in the context of the military covenant. In supporting this Bill, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the excellent work of some local authorities in relation to our service personnel and veterans, including the many who reside in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner as a consequence of the numerous nearby military bases, including HMS Northwood, RAF Northolt and some of the historic ones in the area .
I very much commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for the work that he has done. I know that he was a resident of my constituency during his Army career. I am sure that, like me, he would commend the work of the London borough of Hillingdon, led by our armed forces champion, Councillor Sir Ray Puddifoot. For many service personnel, access to housing and to school places for their children can be a challenge. Hillingdon has, through its approach to the military covenant, sought to make that as straightforward as possible. Its housing allocations policy enables returning service personnel to be treated as though they had never been away from their home area. They are absent in service when it comes to applying for social housing. Targeted support has enabled a Gurkha community to settle and to play a fantastic part in the life of the local area. Support to enable the children of service families to secure school places quickly is also prioritised, ensuring that those who serve their country do not face having to sacrifice their family interest.
I very much encourage the Government and all those involved in the debate about the Bill to highlight these and many other examples of best practice within the military covenant, which are entirely in line with the aspirations that are set out in the Bill, to ensure that our service personnel are treated with the priority that they deserve. It seems clear to me that many of these things are not so much matters of law or of Government targets, but of ensuring that we have the relationships at a local level, the political will and the effective management so that the expectations set out in the military covenant, and set out with local authorities, health bodies and others, are fulfilled. I strongly encourage the Government, in supporting this Bill, to publicise the work of the best as the example to which others may aspire to ensure that we all fulfil our obligations.

Kevan Jones: I join other Members in thanking the Committee Clerks who have supported this Armed Forces Bill and in paying tribute to all the Members who have taken part in it, as we are now on the final stage. I was also going to pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), but I do not think that I can because he is absent again today. He has taken such an interest in this Bill and in standing up for veterans that he cannot even be bothered to get off his beach in Devon to come to speak on their behalf when he has the opportunity to do so, but we will leave that there for now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I rise to support Labour’s new clauses. As I think I have said on a previous occasion, I have been on every single Armed Forces Bill for the past 20 years either as a Minister or a Back Bencher. As has just been said by the  hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), these Bills come round every five years. The Department does not deal with much legislation, so it is very important that, when we do have these five-yearly Bills, we ensure that we try to address all the issues that we can. Sadly, I do not think that we have done so with this Bill. As I have said before, that has partly been down to the intransigence and attitude of the previous armed forces Minister. The new Minister for Defence People and Veterans has been left to pick up the pieces at the end. One issue that has been left unresolved—I was tempted to table an amendment today, but I decided against it—was around investigations. It is outside the scope not only of this Bill, but of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. If, as I understand it, the review is complete later this summer, when will those amendments and changes be put in place, because I do not think that we can wait another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill. As I have said before, this is a missed opportunity. Such changes would have improved this Bill and certainly vastly improved the 2021 Act, which is a disappointment to say the least in terms of promising a lot, and delivering very little. It actually takes away rights from veterans, which is disappointing.
I wish to speak to some of the amendments before us, beginning with new clause 2. One great thing about the way proceedings on Armed Forces Bills are constructed is that we can take evidence from a wide range of individuals. I pay tribute to the people from Fighting With Pride for their evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill. They shone a light on something that has not been highlighted: the effect on those individuals who were dismissed from service because of their sexuality. Many of us thought that because the ban was overturned, that was somehow the end of the issue and things had moved on, but what shocked me and, I think, many Members on the Committee was the fact that those individuals who served their country with dignity and bravery but were then dismissed because of their sexuality still suffer the legacy of that. We heard evidence about an individual who, because it was classed as a sexual offence, is on the sex offenders register, and today, 20 years afterwards, that still affects his ability to get a job as, for example, a school caretaker. That urgently needs to be addressed.
I do not doubt that the Minister is committed to looking at the issue, but without new clause 2 the Ministry of Defence will go into its usual mode of thinking, “We don’t need to bother about this and how we’re going to do it for the next few years.” A study of the effects clearly needs to be done and the issue of criminal records needs to be addressed straight away. There is no justification for these individuals having a criminal record when if they had “committed the same acts” in civilian life they would not have a criminal record. That cannot be right.
I note the change from the Government in terms of asking about medals and making sure that people can apply for the medals that were stripped from them when they were dismissed from service, but we need clear guidance. People have to apply; some people have asked why the MOD cannot take a proactive stance and offer the medals out. For some unknown reason the data is not there, which makes me wonder whether a hard-enough effort has been made to find out about these individuals and address the situation. All three services must have  records on the individuals who were dismissed. It is important that those medals are reported. As I say, I do not question the Minister’s commitment, but I think that without the new clause he will come up against what we all do—as you know, Madam Speaker—in terms of the civil service system: the issue will just get pushed back and back. We have to make sure that that does not happen, and the only way we can do that is through the new clause.
New clause 3 would establish an armed forces federation. This idea always sets off end-of-the-world notions in some in the military and some on the Conservative Back Benches, as though somehow if we had an armed forces federation, the world would stop. If it is good enough for our main allies—the United States, Australia and many European countries—it is good enough for me. People ask whether we are arguing for a trade union; the hon. Member for Glasgow North West was correct to say that it is not about having a trade union for the armed forces. I understand the conservative—with a small c—nature of the military, but we are reaching the point where a federation is going to have to come in sooner rather than later.
Along with other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I have just undertaken an inquiry, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), into women in the armed forces. I will not say what is in our report, but when it is published, which I think will be next week, I think that people will be utterly shocked at the evidence and at what we have found.
A key point that comes out loud and clear is people’s reluctance to come forward and make complaints, and the chain of command’s reluctance to address the issues. We are not talking about employment disputes; in some cases we are talking about serious sexual assault and other issues that are just not being addressed. It is like a pressure cooker—we need something to let the steam out, but there is no system there at the moment, so all it does is build up. In some cases, that is because people in the chain of command are ignoring the issues.
There is still a cultural issue, particularly in the Army, that means that people’s issues are not being addressed, and I do not see any way of changing it other than what would seem a radical change. I would not support any sort of federation that could affect the operational effectiveness of our armed forces in terms of strikes—I would not go there—but what the ordinary man and woman in our armed forces need is a voice, and frankly I do not think they have one. People ought to read the Committee’s report; it saddened me that after all the changes in wider society, some of the old attitudes are still there. It will come round to such a change—whether it will be in the next Armed Forces Act, I am not sure—because those people need representation.
New clause 4 is about the provision of mental health. Has a lot of progress been made in the area? Quite clearly it has, but the same thing is happening now that came up when I was dealing with the matter in the Ministry of Defence: the transition and the disconnect between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health. I know that the present Government have tried, as I certainly did, to ensure a joined-up, seamless service, but it is still not working. Veterans are still falling through the gaps in provision, and the only way we can address that is to ensure a seamless, joined-up service. It has to be patient-led, and it has to be about the individuals.
To reiterate something that the Minister has said on numerous occasions, I do not want to portray the average veteran as a victim, because they are not. Most of them are very active, constructive members of society who have no problems whatsoever, but we have a duty to care for individuals who do not have that positive life post service. How do we break down the barriers for them? Without a joined-up service, we will not have the proper system that I think we all want, across the House, and which is best for our veterans.
I turn to amendment 1. Hon. Members will have seen The Times this morning; the figures on rape and serious sexual assault are not pretty. Is that an issue with lack of commitment or resources? Possibly, but having worked on the Defence Committee’s recent report, what saddens me is that some of it is down to cultural attitudes that have no place in a modern society and that need radical change.
The other issue addressed by amendment 1 relates to my earlier comments about investigations. With matters such as serious sexual assault and domestic violence, we cannot expect the military police to have the level of expertise that most forces would have because of their volume of cases. If someone is dealing with one case a year, their level of expertise in terms of being able to make it a priority, to gather the evidence and to make sure they have the strongest case possible is not going to be there. I am sorry, but this has to be taken out of the military justice system.
Another issue I would like to touch on has been present throughout the Bill’s passage, and that is the jurisdiction of the armed forces covenant. On the areas that have been excluded, the obvious ones for many veterans are pensions, employment, compensation, social care and criminal justice and there are others. Those are completely excluded from the legislation. We tried in Committee to work out why the Government wanted to just stick to quite a prescribed area. I have to say I am not really sure why, apart from that it was a good way of limiting things. If we really want to make the covenant meaningful in practice, it has to go wider.
The other thing that I am still not happy with in the Bill relates to the redress system and the idea that people can take a judicial review if they are not satisfied. What we needed in this Bill—it would have been the obvious thing, and we took evidence from the local government and social care ombudsman, who suggested it—was the right for people to take complaints to the ombudsman if they do not get what they think is redress; without any redress, this is going to be pretty meaningless. I do not want to see the armed forces covenant being seen as a label that is thrown around, but does not actually do anything in practice for our veterans community.
With that, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. Is this a good Bill? No, it is not, really. We have missed opportunities. To be honest—I will end where I started—if we had had the present Minister throughout the passage of the Bill, we would have had a lot more changes. Ministers cannot be in a situation whereby they just will not accept anything and frankly treat Committee members and colleagues with contempt; that was not just to the  Opposition but to Members on the Government Benches as well. It is an opportunity missed. I look forward to the Minister replying. If we have missed these opportunities now and we have to wait another five years for the next Bill—if I am still a Member of the House, I will no doubt be on the Committee—I look forward to some of those things being put in. However, in the meantime, there are opportunities missed that will affect veterans and our armed forces community.

Jamie Stone: I find myself making a mental note to be fairly worried if the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) praises me, but we will gloss over that. I, too, would like to extend my thanks to the Minister. I was delighted to receive a telephone call from him to discuss this Bill a few days ago. I would have been much more surprised had I received a telephone call from his predecessor.
I will give credit where it is due. In our conversation, we discussed the fact that I would be very pleased, forgetting political boundaries, if the Minister or one of his colleagues would care to come to witness NATO’s Exercise Joint Warrior, which takes place off the north-west of my constituency and in other parts of Scotland. It would be a tremendous shot in the arm for our military personnel to see a ministerial presence. I do not think we have actually seen a Government Minister there—certainly not in the lifetime of this Government. I cannot speak for previous Governments; I was not here. It would also be churlish of me not to express my thanks to all the organisations that have been in touch with me during the whole process of this Bill.
We are rather short of time, so I will keep my comments very brief. I want to talk about two things. The first is to say that my party will be supporting amendments 1 and 2. Further to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham on amendment 1, the general public do not really understand why, if a member of the armed forces commits a truly terrible crime—murder or rape—they should be tried and dealt with differently from how someone not in uniform would be dealt with, in a civil court. As an MP, if I were to commit a crime, I would not have the right to be tried by my peers in this House. I would be up in court, in the dock, the same as any other citizen of this country. There seems to be an impeccable logic in amendment 1.
The right hon. Member for North Durham is correct, in that the military police do not have the resources to investigate in the depth that would get to the bottom of some of the most serious allegations that can be made in this land.
Finally on amendment 1, let me turn it around. If the Government cannot support the amendment, are they saying that, in fact, the civil courts are in some way inferior to military courts? Why would they not trust the civil courts and the civil police to get it right?
Secondly, I do not want to weary the Chamber on this, but it is a point I have made a number of times and, for the sake of the record, I repeat it. I have talked at some length about my concern that reducing the size of the Army will lead to the Army, and possibly the other armed services, being seen as not a terribly desirable career option for young people.
We have a massive recruitment problem. Going around the highlands of Scotland, going to the Black Isle show, the Dornoch show and my local Tain highland games,  in years gone by there would be a stall set up by the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, or perhaps two or three of them. The stalls were very popular, an attraction to the general public. They were one of the many reasons why people would go to these events, because people like to see the weapons on display and meet the armed forces personnel. Those events were excellent for recruitment.
I leave Members with a final thought. My thanks again to the Ministry of Defence, as I and others, including the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), went to the Ministry to be briefed on what we have been doing with the United Nations in Mali. It was a most interesting briefing. One message came out. When a young person in my constituency says they are thinking of joining the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, if I can say, “If you opt for that career, you might get yourself involved in something like the peacekeeping effort in Mali,” I guarantee it will be a tremendous attraction. It is very different from doing an ordinary job—I do not want to do down ordinary jobs—a non-services job. That is one way of augmenting recruitment.
All of us in this place, regardless of our political persuasion—if we care about the defence of the realm, if we care about our armed forces, which I am sure everyone here does—have a duty, as Members of Parliament, to do everything we can to encourage recruitment by talking to our constituents and talking to what we call modern studies students in Scottish schools, to say, “Here is a career option you might like to think about.”

Martin Docherty: I associate myself with some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), especially those about the work he and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) have been doing in the Defence Sub-Committee on women in the armed forces.
As we discuss the Bill’s remaining stages, it is unfortunate to reflect that at no point in its journey has it received the attention I would hope for such an important piece of legislation, especially in a week in which we see the inevitability of the external factors that always pop up and seem to push armed forces welfare down the pecking order.
Today, unfortunately, it is international aid. I often wonder whether there are some in the defence establishment who see the aid budget as a golden goose whose slaughter would provide some sort of bounty for the armed forces, solving any funding crisis in the equipment budget. Although I do not want to say it, even if we were to cut the entirety of the aid budget, defence would still need reform.
That is particularly pertinent when it comes to the lack of progress on service justice in the Bill. I have seen it throughout my time on the Defence Committee, especially each year when we hear from the ombudsperson for the armed forces about how their role is stymied by a lack of investment and interest, and by byzantine regulation. Although excellent work is being done across the board by a plethora of armed forces charities, I cannot help but feel each time that the hugely divergent range of lived experiences of the 170,000-odd people in uniform—their geographical spread and divergent socioeconomic circumstances—means that charity, however well intentioned, often does not reach those who need it most.
In the case of both service justice and access to services for those in need, which are included in amendments this afternoon, we see a continuation—at least from my perspective and that of my party—of a two-tier system that enshrines class and social privilege, and ensures that the organisation itself will be unable ever to realise its full potential. The deficit in both service justice and access to services brings us to the case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan. This week, the Army’s report into his death in January 2020 was brought to wider attention. It admitted
“failings in the proper management of personnel”,
meaning that Bernard lay dead—undiscovered, in his bed, in his room in his barracks—for three weeks. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this case last year, and I have no doubt that the Ministry and the Army feel that his death was unacceptable and profoundly regrettable. However, there are other unsettling aspects of the case that speak to some of the challenges that we face in this Bill.
Lance Corporal Mongan came from a Traveller background. Although I do not want to go into whether that was a contributing factor in the bullying that may or may not have led to Bernard’s death, we must ask ourselves why it is that, time and again, those from our most marginalised communities are failed in this appalling fashion. This is precisely the moment when we should be ensuring that equality of opportunity and an armed forces who are representative of all communities on these islands become a reality. I can only, sadly, come to the conclusion that that is an opportunity that has been missed.
Although enshrining the armed forces covenant into law is welcome progress, a real legislative framework for armed forces personnel in this political state is, quite simply, long overdue. We can call it a bill of rights for the armed forces or an armed forces representative body, as has been my party’s policy for many years. I could even call it a trade union; I do not have a problem with the words “trade union”. We could at least start by giving members of the armed forces a contract that clearly states the obligations that their employer has to them and vice versa. Until we do, it is unlikely that we will be able to address the underlying issues that so many armed forces personnel face.
Finally, I feel that I should touch on something that is in a way connected to this legislation and which illustrates the knots into which the UK Government tie themselves to keep up appearances. I am currently chairing the Defence Sub-Committee on the subcontracting of MOD staff, which held its first evidence session yesterday. We will hear Ministers and other Members today make references to things such as “defence family”, “defence people” and “whole force”, but the demonstratable experience of many of those who make up the whole force, including my own constituents, is one of worsening conditions, lack of security and increasing alienation with the picture that is painted, I am afraid, by those who come to the Government Dispatch Box, including the Minister. We will undoubtedly hear all about the increase in the capital budget from the Government Benches today. I only wish that we might hear more about the day-to-day spend that is to remain stagnant over the next five years and what the Government intend to do to ensure that it is not the poorest paid in the armed forces who bear the brunt of this fiscal restraint.
I have always believed that in life, just as in politics, the key measure of our character and our beliefs is how we treat those with the least power and agency. It is high time that we enshrined the rights and responsibilities of all members of the armed forces, and, indeed, all those who support them. I will never tire of saying in these debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us speak of them less as heroes and more like you and me, entitled to everything that you and I would expect. It is the very least that we can do.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and hear such welcome contributions from the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far. This Bill is something that is close to my heart, as a former Ulster Defence Regiment and Territorial Army soldier, and as an elected representative who has seen the way in which some of our troops have fared after service. I will make some comments in relation to the regular force: the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to recruitment issues, which I also mentioned last time we spoke on this topic in the House, and I want to reiterate some of those comments if I can.
I believe that we must improve recruitment and retention. Each time numbers are cut, morale is dealt a blow, recruiting drops, and the three services become undermanned, which has a detrimental effect on those who are serving and those who maybe would wish to. I make these comments gracefully and try to do so in a respectful fashion, but we have two aircraft carriers, yet we only have crew for one. We have fewer tanks than most third-world countries, and we have a few highly complex fighter jets, but little ability to conduct expeditionary air warfare other than a reliance on Cyprus as a base. Future investment must be about growing the capability and capacity of the regular force. I know that the Minister is keen to do that, and we are keen that he should be supported in doing so, from both the Opposition side of the House and his own side.
If our regular forces can no longer punch at or above our new weight as an independent post-Brexit global player, I believe that we must reinvest in soft power. The last debate we had, which was on overseas aid, was about soft power: how we use it better to influence and help countries in which the potential for terrorism and extremism abounds, and how we get a reasonable level of GDP boost in those countries to ensure we can still bring some influence to bear in places where we cannot put boots on the ground, or indeed jets in the air.
When it comes to the reserve forces, I make a plea to the Minister directly: I know that he is interested in this matter and will wish to respond, but we continue to believe that Northern Ireland could make greater contributions to the whole force concept through greater opportunities in the reserve forces. Again, I urge the Minister to review the current reserve forces footprint in Northern Ireland, and consider expanding it to recruit a greater number of reservists from a wider footprint.
For example, Enniskillen uniquely gives its name to two very fine British Army regiments, the Inniskilling Dragoons and the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, both formed in the Williamite wars of the 1690s to defend  the town against Jacobite rebels. Today, that loyal town is only being asked to provide a few medics and an infantry company. Northern Ireland is able to, and wants to, provide more reservists, so how can we make that happen? This comes back to the issue of recruitment, which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross referred to and which I want to speak about today, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. May I remind the Minister, hon. and gallant Member that he is, that at the height of the cold war and in the midst of the so-called troubles there were 11 UDR battalions, two TA infantry battalions, an artillery regiment—which I belonged to as a part-time soldier—a signal regiment, an engineer regiment, logistics regiments, medical regiments, yeomanry regiments, military police and so on? Today, we are being asked for a fraction of that, yet the world is still a dangerous place. If we have the potential to recruit in Northern Ireland, we should be taking every step and every action to make sure that happens.
Very quickly, I will turn to veterans. I put on record the work of Danny Kinahan, the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner, and thank him for the impact that that post will no doubt have in due course. However, for some veterans in Northern Ireland, there is still precious little evidence of the impact of the armed forces covenant, or of other initiatives for veterans such as rail cards, guaranteed interview schemes and the veterans ID card. May I remind the Minister that this is a far cry from the desire to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran?
Respectfully, I make the point that Westminster can impose abortion laws and Irish language Acts from Westminster, but there is a real lack of pressure from London on Belfast when it comes to supporting our veterans. I would love to see more emphasis put on that if at all possible. I remain concerned about the scrutiny of the delivery outputs that flow from the armed forces covenant, so can the Minister be sure that all the promised action is being taken so that veterans are being housed, getting treatment with the priority they need, getting access to jobs and training, being supported by local and regional councils, and getting the recognition they are due?
Who are the eyes and ears at local and regional levels that are ensuring that all that can be done is being done? I urge the Minister to increase the assistance and get on with empowering the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees in order that they can fulfil their remit of ensuring that the armed forces covenant is being delivered across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in its entirety.
I appreciate the sentiment behind new clause 4, to which the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred, regarding the duty of care on mental health. That is vital, and never has it been more important. I work closely with a charity in Northern Ireland called Beyond the Battlefield, which provides counselling, as well as practical aid for veterans. It has recently leased a property in my constituency, in the village of Portavogie, which provides en suite accommodation for 10 people. The intention is to use it as a respite facility for veterans from throughout the Province. It will be the first of its kind in the whole of the Province, and after the closure of the Royal British Legion facility in Portrush we will have dedicated facilities available for our veterans.
This venue will provide space for individual reflection, as well as having communal rooms and therapy areas. The charity has fundraised and done so much work, and there is much more to be done with this facility—it has been targeted by vandals in the past, so there is some refurbishment work to do. I know that the Minister will be keen to hear more, and I will be anxious to see how the MOD can sow into this facility that is designed to pick up the slack left by the Department. On behalf of Beyond the Battlefield, I extend an invitation to the Minister to visit when the refurbishment is completed, as we would be very pleased to have him over for that purpose. If he is able to do so at a time convenient for him and us, we will do that.
Another clause that has struck me is that on the armed forces federation. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has referred to this regularly. It is one of the subjects he never misses on, and he did not miss on it today either. There is a principle at stake there that should be considered. I work with a wonderful charity called SSAFA—the armed forces charity, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. It is probably known to everybody in this House, and it is often called on to step into scenarios that an armed forces federation would be designed to step into. If this Bill is aimed at addressing the years of neglect, this is an important aspect of it. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for the work he has put into this Armed Forces Bill, and I thank him for it. Our party will be supporting amendments 1 and 2 if they are put to a vote.
I conclude by saying that the Bill has many pros and many cons, one of which is that soldiers who served in Northern Ireland are treated differently. That must be made right. I know the Minister wishes to do that, and it would be good to hear in his response that that will be the case. I anxiously await the Government holding to their word to ensure that every service personnel member, regardless of where they served, deserves the same treatment. I still believe we miss out on this. This Bill is to be welcomed, but improvements can and must still happen. I look forward to hearing from the Government, and from the Minister in particular, whom I look upon as a friend, as to whether these new clauses and amendments which would enhance the Bill will be acceptable.

Leo Docherty: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock); I am grateful for her sincere and constructive tone. I think the whole House is united in our desire to support our armed forces, and I am confident that the Bill delivers for our armed forces. It renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, it improves the service justice system, and it delivers on the Government’s commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
I turn first to new clause 1. As I said in Committee, the Government take very seriously our duty of care for service personnel and veterans under investigation. This amendment was debated at length in the other place during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. Our servicepeople are entitled to receive comprehensive legal support, and a full range of welfare and mental health support is  offered to all our people, as laid out in the Defence Secretary’s written ministerial statement of 13 April 2021. We have made clear our intent to provide a gold standard of care, and we will not deviate from that.
We resist the new clause because a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. People have different needs, and we want to ensure bespoke provision—the right support at the right time. Furthermore, the difficulties of drafting such a duty of care would inevitably mean the involvement of the courts and additional litigation.
Turning to new clause 2, I am pleased to remind the House that the Government accept entirely that the historical policy prohibiting homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong, and there was historic injustice suffered by members of the LGBT+ community as a consequence. We are committed entirely to addressing that with urgency and humility, and our priority now is to understand the full impact of the pre-millennium ban. We are committed to finding an appropriate mechanism to address this injustice, but we resist the new clause because it may complicate or constrain the work already under way.

Kevan Jones: As I said in my contribution, I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to righting this wrong, but he is going to come up against a lot of resistance from his Department when it comes to issues around compensation in terms of pensions and everything else. I just stress that he must push back, and push back hard.

Leo Docherty: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. I hear it, and I reassure him that we will address this matter with absolute resolve. It will be at the heart of the veterans strategy, which I will announce this winter.
Turning to new clause 3, let me reassure the House that the interests of armed forces personnel are already represented and protected through a range of mechanisms, including the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the pay review bodies, the annual continuous attitude survey, and more than 50 diversity networks operating within Defence at various levels, run mostly by volunteer members, with senior officer advocates and champions—and, lastly but most importantly, there is the chain of command. We therefore resist the new clause.
I turn to new clause 4. In June 2021, the annual UK armed forces mental health bulletin showed that the overall rate of mental ill health is actually lower among service personnel than in the general population, but of course we are never complacent. We are constantly striving to improve our mental healthcare support for service personnel and, indeed, veterans. We resist the new clause because it lacks utility and would merely add to the administrative burden of those seeking to support our service personnel. Indeed, a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on healthcare provision already exists as part of the armed forces covenant.
Amendment 1 would give the Attorney General the role of deciding whether the most serious crimes are prosecuted in the service courts. We have already considered this issue carefully as a recommendation of the Lyons review, but we believe that enhancing the prosecutors protocol is the most effective way to improve decisions on concurrent jurisdiction, because it allows decisions  to be made early on, by independent prosecutors who have close working relationships with civilian and service police.
If the AG had to give consent, the process would be slower. The AG would effectively be asked to endorse decisions that had been made very early in an investigation, and it is hard to see what the AG would be adding. However, if the AG were to disagree with those earlier decisions and veto the trying of a case in the service justice system, there would be no easy way to transfer that case to the civilian system. That may have the undesired effect of making it difficult or impossible to prosecute the case in either system.
For that reason, we resist the amendment. We have a more pragmatic approach, because we want a workable, transparent and rigorous process for decisions on jurisdiction. We want cases to be heard in the right system, and we are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur. We must bear in mind that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say.
Turning to amendments 2 to 8, the covenant duty covers public bodies delivering healthcare, housing and education, because those are the key areas of concern for our armed forces community. We have ensured that the legislation can adapt to the needs of the armed forces community in future by making provision to allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant by way of affirmative regulations. The Bill is evergreen, and if we need to expand it in future, we will.
On amendments 3 to 6, they seek to ensure, again, that all service housing is regulated in line with the local minimum quality standard. That is unnecessary because, as I have said previously, 96.7% of MOD-provided service family accommodation meets or exceeds the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government decent homes standard. The amendments would introduce an unhelpful disparity across the UK and would not achieve the intended effect, as local authorities that fall within the scope of the covenant duty are not responsible for the provision of service accommodation. We therefore resist those amendments, but I can reassure the House that the provision of high-quality subsidised accommodation remains a fundamental part of the overall MOD offer to service personnel and their families.

Jim Shannon: I asked specifically about recruitment in Northern Ireland and what we could do with reserve forces. Can I have an assurance that recruitment is necessary in Northern Ireland to fill the gap for soldiers who can help the British Army? If we can do it in Northern Ireland, let us make it happen.

Leo Docherty: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance and put that on the record.
I thank the team of magnificently resolute and tenacious MOD civil servants in the Bill team, including Jayne Scheier, John Shivas, Caron Tassel, Tim Payne and Ben Bridge. I call on the House to reject the amendments. The armed forces always stand up for us; we must stand up for the armed forces, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Stephanie Peacock: It has been an incredibly thoughtful debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have taken part, including the Minister. Having listened carefully to what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1, but I will seek to press new clause 4 to a vote, as well as amendments 1 and 2.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Armed Forces Mental Health Care review
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing a review of the mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the—
(a) Defence Medical Services,
(b) Departments of Community Mental Health and the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and
(c) Reserves Mental Health Programme.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed.” .—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would require the government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for serving personnel
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 361.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 7 - Concurrent jurisdiction

Amendment proposed: 1,page4,line27, at end insert—
‘guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to require specific consent by the Attorney General to be tried in court martial when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and
(b) if the Attorney General has not granted such consent, guidance under (3)(a) shall provide that charges as set out in section 4A(a) to be tried in civilian court only.”’.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes—murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape—are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 360.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 8 - Armed forces covenant

Amendment proposed: 2, page18,line28, at end insert—
“343AG Section 343AF: report
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed, and thereafter must make a report at least once in every calendar year.
(2) The report in subsection (1) shall set out how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.
(3) Any report published under subsection (1) after the initial report made 3 months after this Act is passed must include—
(a) a statement detailing how the powers granted through section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) have been used since the last report was issued,
(b) a review of the relevance of the listed bodies and functions in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in relation to the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report under section 343A of AFA 2006, and
(c) the outcome of a consultation conducted by the Secretary of State with the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group on the bodies and functions listed in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in regard to their appropriateness and relevance as part of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.” —(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 358.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Third Reading

Leo Docherty: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to reiterate my thanks to all hon. and right hon. Members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today. I have been honoured to lead on this Bill that further enshrines the armed forces covenant into law. Ultimately, the Bill is for the armed forces, its serving personnel, veterans and their families, and I pay tribute to them for their bravery, stoicism and unflinching professionalism. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and this Bill is for them.
Our armed forces stand up for us and we must always stand up for them, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Stephen Morgan: Labour has said from the start that this Bill offered a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to make meaningful changes to the day-to-day lives of our forces personnel, veterans and their families. During Armed Forces Week, I had the privilege to bring together veterans of D-day, the Falklands and the Gulf war with Royal Navy and Royal Marine cadets from across Portsmouth. This celebration of service past and present was a powerful reminder of our collective responsibility to keep society’s promises to our nation’s service personnel. That is why Labour worked with service charities, veterans and personnel, and colleagues from across the House, to get the very best for our armed forces from this legislation.
The increased scrutiny the Bill has received means the Government have had many opportunities to listen to the fundamental concerns raised, but Ministers have steadfastly refused to do so at every turn. The Government have let themselves off the hook in delivering for Her Majesty’s forces. The provisions in the Bill do not apply to Government Departments, including, laughably, the Ministry of Defence itself, so while the Government claim the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law the reality is that they have outsourced the delivery of its important promises to others, and without any extra resource with which to do it.
Service charities continue to raise concerns about the Bill’s narrow scope, which risks creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on standards in service areas left out. In practice, this means that long-standing issues facing forces communities, and frequently raised by service charities, will not be addressed. Employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration are all on the long list of areas we know will not be covered. Labour’s amendments  forced Ministers to take responsibility and widen the scope of the Bill. Twelve of the UK’s largest service charities, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Cobseo and SSAFA, all wrote to Ministers last week backing these proposals, but the Government still voted them down.
On service justice, we welcome the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner, and we hope to see Ministers get on with implementing this to ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases. However, the Government refuse to improve access to justice for service personnel by trying rape and serious offences in civilian courts when they are committed in the UK. These proposals are backed by the Deepcut families, who have used their powerful and first-hand experiences of poor service justice investigations to call out the double standard of sudden deaths being handled by civilian police while rape and other serious offences are not.
Almost three quarters of sexual offences in the armed forces in 2020 took place in the UK, and between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%. The latest data available suggest the conviction rate was 59% in the civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. This issue is disproportionately affecting women of junior rank: more than three quarters of the victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private. Ministers refuse to recognise the weight of evidence from these figures, the experts and campaigners, and instead have relentlessly backed a fudge that will leave personnel vulnerable. That will be on their watch.
Finally, the Government have rejected the golden opportunity provided by Labour to end the shameful scandal of eye-watering visa fees for non-UK service personnel. Ministers cynically cite the long-awaited and underwhelming plans currently under consultation as proof of progress on this disgraceful injustice, but we know that they will help just one in 10 of those affected. The truth is that Ministers are content with making these decisions, but personnel will pay twice to stay in the country they have fought for.
In summary, this is an Armed Forces Bill that provides absolutely nothing for actively serving personnel. It fails to address long-standing and well-known issues facing service communities. It willingly ignores the recommendations of a judge-led review on the service justice system. It reduces appeal time limits for serving personnel brave enough to make a complaint, and it does nothing to end the shameful scandal at eye-watering visa fees for non-UK veterans. The Tories will talk this up as a manifesto promise fulfilled, but by any measure this Bill does not match the high standards our armed forces display in their service and in what they demand of themselves. Tonight, personnel, veterans and their families will rightly be questioning whether this Government really are on their side.
It is Labour that has been working in the interests of service communities. The Tories have dogmatically opposed these efforts, but we will continue to support this Bill, despite its many faults, as the intentions and principles underpinning it are positive. However, we will do so knowing that this Government have fallen far short of delivering the very best for service personnel. This will not be the end of Labour’s efforts to secure improvements for our armed forces communities. We will continue to   champion them, and we will work with others in the other place to ensure that the Government deliver on the covenant and in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. They deserve nothing else.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Rosie Winterton: I will now suspend the House for two minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

National Health Service

Helen Whately: I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
As we head towards a winter where care homes may have to battle with covid and flu, the question we should ask ourselves is this: what more can we do? Over the last year and a half, covid-19 has sadly taken many thousands of lives, particularly the lives of older people and those with underlying health conditions, and particularly the lives of those who need the kind of care received in a care home. There have been more than 40,000 deaths among care home residents. They were mothers and fathers, grans and grandads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. Sadly, we have lost some of our dedicated care workers, too: despite all the efforts that have been made by care homes and their staff, local authorities and by us in Government to keep covid out, despite personal protective equipment, despite testing, despite isolation. Throughout the second wave, care homes used 26 million tests and—

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order earlier this afternoon about the lack of an impact assessment before the House, despite it having been referred to on 22 June as having been made available. I was informed during the course of that point of order that pressure was going to be put on the Government to explain why there was no impact assessment. It is therefore a source of great disappointment that the Minister has not started off her speech with such an apology and explanation.

Nigel Evans: Thank you for that point of order, Sir Christopher. The Minister is on her feet and she looks as if she may respond to that point of order herself, as it is not a point for the Chair.

Helen Whately: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was indeed intending to come to that point. I was commencing my speech by giving some further context, but I can respond to the specific point made by my hon. Friend. The impact assessment is being worked on. I will be clear with hon. Members. One of the challenges is that there is significant uncertainty about the level of behavioural change we may see in the weeks ahead from this and other measures, for instance the requirement for vaccination to travel to some countries, which we anticipate will lead to further vaccination uptake.

William Wragg: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: If my hon. Friend will let me, I will cover his exact point.
I know that some hon. Members may wish to delay this debate, because they wish to review—

William Wragg: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It states in the explanatory notes:
“A full Impact Assessment has been prepared”.
If it has been prepared, it cannot currently be in preparation. So where is it?

Nigel Evans: That is not a point of order for me, but it could have been an intervention upon the Minister, so let us allow the Minister to give the full response to the points that have been made and perhaps she can include that one from William Wragg.

Helen Whately: As I said, the impact assessment is being worked on. That is the current situation. I was explaining one of the challenges in coming to an impact assessment that we can share with colleagues to inform them accurately. I really hear that hon. Members want to have the full set of information for this debate. We face a dilemma: the clock is ticking and each day we are moving closer to winter. I am going to come on to it in the detail of my speech, but one important feature of this proposed legislation is that it gives staff a grace period in which to get vaccinated. The longer we take on this, the more risk there is to having that grace period.

Mark Harper: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Helen Whately: In one moment. One thing I can share is evidence that we have on how this kind of policy is working in practice from a large care home provider that is already implementing a requirement for its staff to be vaccinated. It has seen the vast majority of staff get vaccinated, with less than 1% of its workforce choosing not to be vaccinated. We have committed—and the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) committed to this earlier to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—to publishing an impact statement setting out the evidence we have in advance of the Lords debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Whately: If my hon. Friends would allow to make a little more progress, I will absolutely take more interventions. However, I am conscious of wanting to set out the context and thinking behind this piece of legislation.

Mark Harper: rose—

Helen Whately: I may well answer many of my hon. Friends’ questions as I proceed, so I ask my right hon. Friend to let me make a little progress and I assure him I will take interventions.
As I was saying, throughout the second wave care homes used 26 million tests and 1.2 billion items of personal protective equipment, yet still we saw outbreaks in many care homes during the winter and 14,000 deaths from covid among care home residents. But there is one thing now making a huge and crucial difference, a major advance that is unequivocally saving the lives of care home residents and staff from this cruel and pernicious virus, and that is vaccination. I have spoken to residents who were in tears of joy and relief as they were vaccinated, as they at last had their own defence against this virus. So far, the vaccine roll-out to residents and staff in care homes has been a big success story. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation made residents and staff in older age care homes the highest priority as soon as vaccines were available, and the NHS hit its target of offering the first dose to all care homes by the end of January, which was a fantastic effort.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: In one moment. Vaccination teams have made multiple visits to care homes since then and as a result 96% of those living in older age care homes have had their first dose and 93% have had their second dose. Some 92% of residents living in working age care homes have had their first dose and 87% have had their second dose. Take-up among staff has also been strong, with 86% of staff in older age care homes having had their first dose and 75% having had their second dose, and 83% of staff in working age care homes having had their first dose and 72% having had their second dose. Our vaccination teams have gone to great lengths to support and encourage those who have been worried about the vaccination, along with care home managers and care colleagues. I am sure that Members will join me in thanking everyone in the NHS, local authorities and care homes who have worked so hard together to achieve such levels of vaccination.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Whately: I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).

Mark Harper: I come back to the point about the impact assessment. The document prepared for the House says that a full impact assessment has been prepared. Ministers need to give accurate information to the House, so if that is not correct and is misleading, it should be corrected immediately. It is not good enough to say that something will come along afterwards; we are being asked to vote on these regulations today. There is no urgency—the regulations do not come into force for 16 weeks, until November—so it is perfectly reasonable for them to be taken away and for the impact assessment that has been prepared to be published. If there is uncertainty, share the uncertainty with the House. It is not good enough to expect us to vote on something that is difficult, controversial and complicated and not share with the House the information that the Minister has at her disposal. It is an abuse. It is not good enough.

Helen Whately: During the course of this speech, I will share as much information as I can with my right hon. Friend on the rationale behind this, but let me address his point about the timing. He says that it could be done later, but the problem is that, if we do it later, will we suggesting that it is too late for care home staff who have not yet been vaccinated? The point is to give care home staff the time between this being legislated upon and its being implemented in time for the winter, when we know that there is a greater risk of a combination of covid and flu, to get vaccinated, in the knowledge that we are generally seeing an eight-week period between doses.

Desmond Swayne: The Minister will appreciate that the provisions before us extend well beyond the care home staff. With respect to the 1% of those staff of whom she spoke, in the absence of the impact assessment, if their failure to be vaccinated results in dismissal, who will be responsible for the compensation?

Helen Whately: My right hon. Friend asks an important question about how things would work in practice, although I think he is presuming that there is a question  of compensation. I expect to see care homes being able to follow a process, and so long as they follow a fair process, there should be no need for the compensation that my right hon. Friend suggests. We will set out guidance, but the point is that there is a fair process in which, for instance, a care home can discuss vaccination with its staff member and, indeed, look at whether there might be an alternative role for an individual if they really do not want to be vaccinated, although I am realistic that there are not that many roles for staff in care homes that do not involve being in the care home. After that, if the situation is still that the staff member does not wish to be vaccinated, the care home must follow a notice period and make sure that it follows a fair process.

Rachael Maskell: I want to help the Minister. We are having to make a decision this evening on the balance of risk, but we have not been given the data because the impact assessment has not come forward. The Minister is, in effect, asking us to make a decision on information that we have not yet been able to see. Would it not therefore be more sensible to withdraw this statutory instrument and ensure that we have the right data in front of us, so that we can then make an informed choice?

Helen Whately: We live in an uncertain world, but we know that covid is a killer for people living in care homes and we know that the winter ahead of us is going to be challenging both because of the ongoing circulation of covid and because of flu. The question we should put to ourselves today is: what are the steps that we can take to make people safer in the months ahead? This time last year—last summer—infection rates were low, but we did not sit back and say, “In that case, it’s going to be okay for the winter.” We in Government, working with local authorities and care homes, made preparations for the winter ahead. Thank goodness we did make those preparations. Although sadly there were many deaths, had we not put in place the personal protective equipment distribution system, had we not had the level of regular testing that went on in care homes throughout the winter, and had we not had the support with infection prevention and control, I fear that last winter would have been much worse. We know that the winter ahead is going to be another challenging one and we must prepare for it.

William Wragg: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: I will make some progress. As the Prime Minister and our chief medical officer have said, even when we are no longer in a pandemic, the virus will remain in some shape or form and we will have to learn to live with it. It will continue to circulate and potentially evolve into new variants, and there is a serious risk of a resurgence of flu and other seasonal infections. A combination of covid and flu may be unpleasant for many of us, but it will be life threatening for those who are most vulnerable.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Helen Whately: We must ask ourselves: what more can we do to protect those who will be most vulnerable?

William Wragg: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To assist the debate, there is a discrepancy between the explanatory memorandum and the explanatory note on the back of the statutory instrument. The note states:
“A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is available from the Department of Health”.
It gives the Department’s address and indeed the website on which the assessment is supposedly published. So is the explanatory note in the instrument correct or not?

Nigel Evans: Again, this is not a matter for the Chair, but it is certainly a point for the Minister to address. I think it would be helpful if the Minister could directly address that particular issue, which many Members are now raising.

Helen Whately: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is not a great deal more that I can say on that point. As I have said, the impact assessment is being worked on and we will share it with colleagues as soon as we can. That is all I can say on that particular point.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I asked the House of Commons Library to inquire of the Department where this impact assessment was, and the Department informed the Library that it was about to present the impact assessment. It did not say that the assessment was still under preparation. The implication was that it was ready to be given to the House and it was just a matter of time—they said they would do it as soon as possible.

Nigel Evans: Again, I can only say what I have heard during the debate and apparently the impact assessment is simply not available. This is clearly not the best situation. We can see exactly what it is, but it is what it is.

Helen Whately: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies recommends that 80% of staff and 90% of residents should be vaccinated in any care home, at a minimum, to provide protection against outbreaks of covid. While the majority of care home workers have now been vaccinated, our most recent data has told us that only 65% of older-age care homes in England were meeting that safe minimum level, and the figure fell to 44% in London. That is why the instrument is being put forward today. It means that, by November, subject to parliamentary approval and a subsequent 16-week grace period, anyone entering a Care Quality Commission-registered care home in England must be vaccinated unless an exemption applies. That will apply to all workers employed by the care home, those employed by an agency and volunteers in the care home. Those entering care homes to undertake other work, for example, healthcare workers, tradespeople, hairdressers and CQC inspectors, will all have to follow the regulations.
The introduction of this policy has not been taken lightly. We have consulted extensively, including with a wide range of valued stakeholders, and used their feedback to inform this legislation. We recognise that some people feel that workers should have freedom of choice about vaccination, while others do it as a duty of care to protect the people most at risk. I know from speaking directly to people who receive care and to those who  have relatives living in care homes that, although they might not be sure about requiring all care workers to be vaccinated, they are sure that they, individually, want to be cared for by someone who has been fully vaccinated. Many people have little choice about who cares for them.

William Wragg: The Minister mentions feedback, but the draft explanatory memorandum states that
“a majority (57%) of respondents did not support the proposal”.
How, therefore, does the feedback show that there is support for it?

Helen Whately: We have reviewed the huge number of responses to the consultation. Not everybody who responded supported the proposal—as my hon. Friend says, 57% did not—but it was interesting that the picture in care homes was fairly even between those who supported it and those who were concerned.
One thing that we are already seeing is that some care homes are bringing in the policy themselves.

Mark Jenkinson: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: I may pre-empt my hon. Friend’s point. I know that hon. Friends have asked why the Government need to bring in the policy if some care homes are doing it themselves. The problem is that we could risk a situation in which someone fortunate enough to be living in a care home that has required vaccination for its workers is highly protected against the virus, but someone less fortunate, in a care home in which far fewer staff are vaccinated, is unfortunately at much greater risk. That is not an inequality that any of us should be comfortable with.

Jim Shannon: If we take a vote tonight, it will set a trend, set down a marker and point the direction not just for this place, but for the whole United Kingdom; I mention Northern Ireland in particular. Before we make the decision, may I ask whether the Minister has had any opportunity to talk to the regional, devolved Minister, Robin Swann, to gauge his opinion on how the legislation will affect us?

Helen Whately: The hon. Member is right: I know that other parts of the United Kingdom are watching what we are doing here in England. There are regular conversations between the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the other Administrations. Also relevant is the international situation: other countries have either done what we are doing or are looking very hard at it. In fact, France has just announced that it will require vaccination for health and social care workers on a faster timeline than the one we propose.
Never again do we want to be back in the situation of having covid outbreaks across hundreds of care homes, with those who live and work in them losing their lives to this virus. Vaccination is a safe and effective way of preventing the spread of covid. The majority of care home workers have already taken up the vaccine, and it is essential that all care home workers who can have the vaccine do so in order to protect those in their care.
The original scope proposed in the consultation was to apply the policy only to care homes that look after older people, but following the consultation it became clear that there was a compelling case to extend the obligation to all care homes that provide care to the most vulnerable, for example young adults with learning disabilities. There was also significant support for broadening the scope of the policy to include all those who come into contact with residents, and there was support for including all those who enter care home residences in any capacity.

Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Helen Whately: I will proceed, and I may answer my hon. Friend’s question as I go.
We listened to the responses and made the decision to apply the policy to all people working inside care homes, unless they have a medical exemption or are not eligible for vaccination—under-18s, for instance. There are further exemptions, including people providing emergency assistance or undertaking urgent maintenance work, and family or friends visiting. Guidance will be published that gives more detail about the exemptions, which will reflect the green book on immunisation and clinical advice from the JCVI.

Graham Brady: Can the Minister explain why the draft regulations do not distinguish between those workers who actually come into contact with residents and those who do not?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question. We consulted on exactly that point. There are two reasons relevant to the breadth of the policy, which covers not only care workers, but others coming into the care home, such as hairdressers, health professionals and tradespeople.
When somebody, including a tradesperson, comes into a care home, they might spend significant time in the care home, move around and move from room to room, so they might be a significant infection risk to the care home. They might also move between one care home and another, particularly if they are a specialist who serves multiple care homes. We know there is a risk when individuals are moving between care homes, so there is a clinical case for the regulations.
We also heard from providers responding to the consultation that they want a consistent approach for people who enter a care home to work, and these regulations will make it more straightforward for them to implement that.

Luke Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On making sure there is equity, where does she believe the duty of care falls, given these regulations?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Throughout the pandemic, the Government and I have felt our responsibility to protect those living in care homes from covid as best we can. We can try to do that by extending to them the protection of being cared for by people who are doubly vaccinated, knowing as we do now, from the increasing evidence, that being vaccinated not only protects the individual but reduces the risk of transmission.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Helen Whately: I will sum up, as I know other colleagues wish to makes speeches.
I put on record my sincere thanks to care workers across the country, not just for their work throughout the pandemic but for all they bring to our health and care services. People working in care homes have played an incredibly important role in caring for those most at risk from this terrible virus. The vaccine is working, with more than 14,000 lives saved so far. It is only right that we take every possible step to protect those most at risk.
As I said at the outset, we must all ask ourselves what more we can do to protect care home residents, and these regulations are what we can do.

Mark Jenkinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether the vaccination figures cited by the Minister, which are more than a month out of date, might have inadvertently misled the House. Her earlier figures on the vaccination status of care home staff and residents suggest it simply is not possible for the figures both to have reached the SAGE threshold and to be as low as the House was informed.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Obviously, I cannot comment on figures the Minister may or may not have used. I am sure she will have heard what he said and, if there is anything that needs correcting, will do so in her summing up.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Since the start of the pandemic, our lives have all been deeply affected. Our key workers have experienced more than their fair share of grief, strife and sacrifice. Our care staff have truly been the best of us during the past 16 months, nursing our loved ones at the end of their life, being the person who holds our relatives when they are scared and confused, and facilitating greetings through windows and fences and across roads. They have been family to our vulnerable relatives over the past year, and for that I will be forever grateful. I do not think we will ever be able to repay that debt.
These are not the words of a politician or even a doctor; they are the words of a daughter who had to say goodbye to her father during the pandemic. I am eternally grateful for the care my father received, which went above and beyond what I could have expected. Carers showed my family and me what humanity truly is: changing their shifts to be with him, being on the end of the phone whenever we needed them, and facilitating whatever they could for us to be with him in his last moments. I can never repay my father’s carers for the humanity that they showed him as his condition worsened while my family could not be by his bedside.
Carers were scared, and many still are. The idea of passing a deadly virus on to the people in their care tormented them, and that is why we are here today. The idea that care workers do not think about the day-to-day safety of the people they care about is an insult. From my own experience, I know that their residents are of the utmost importance to them. So often poorly paid,  they put in the gruelling work because they truly care. To argue that they do not neglects their fears. We want everyone working in a care home to take up the vaccine, which is safe and effective, but we are not inclined to support these proposals or the case for compulsory vaccination.
There are serious warnings from the care sector that the Government’s plan could lead to staff shortages in already understaffed care homes. This would have disastrous consequences for the quality of care. It is vital that we examine the current reality of life on the frontline in care settings. During the pandemic, Unison surveyed its members, who shared that they were feeling more anxious and depressed than before owing to the fear of passing the virus on to their relatives and those under their care. Many felt that their management were not equipped to support their needs. Resoundingly, care workers just wanted people to listen to their experiences and the challenges they were experiencing without, and I quote, “fear of being singled out as a troublemaker”.

Rachael Maskell: I am really grateful for the speech that my hon. Friend is making and obviously pass on my condolences to her. Does she agree that after all that our care workers have been through, what they need at this time is not only supported conversation about how they can progress with their own vaccination, or not, but to have the right people in place giving them that supported conversation?

Rosena Allin-Khan: It is almost as though my hon. Friend has read the rest of my speech. I could not agree more.
We have to listen to our care workers today. For the young, pregnant carers worried about their next pay cheque, will these proposals make them more secure? For all those carers from communities who have lost trust in authority, will the threat of losing their jobs instil more trust? For all those carers who have loved and cared for their residents but have concerns about the vaccine and have not had anyone answer their questions, are they being told that their dedication is suddenly irrelevant?
To understand why there may be hesitancy among care home workers to take up the vaccine, it is important to understand the health inequalities that much of the workforce face. Ethnic minorities are over-represented in the adult social care workforce, with 21% of all care staff coming from a minority ethnic background. Negative experiences of a culturally insensitive health service, the higher rates of death from covid for people from black and south Asian communities, and a lack of representation of minority groups in vaccine trials and wider health research all serve to build distrust in the health system. These are some of the communities that have been hit the hardest during the pandemic.
The disproportionate use of coercive and restrictive practices on minority communities also, importantly, erodes trust in the system. Black people are four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 than white people, despite making up a much smaller percentage of the overall population. With trust so low, that creates hesitancy, but this can be overcome through effective communication and an understanding of the issues that have created it. Further coercion and punishment through the threat of being dismissed from employment only reinforces the reasons for hesitancy in the first place.

Steve Brine: I hear what the hon. Lady is saying. My first instinct on persuasion, months and months ago, was exactly the same, but more than seven months on, it has not happened. I am tempted to ask, “If not now, when?”, to coin a phrase. What is her response to that?

Rosena Allin-Khan: My response is that the Government have not gone far enough to have these conversations. A real effort has not been made to engage with the communities that have been hit the hardest and for whom vaccine hesitancy is at its highest. Trust being so low creates the hesitancy that I have just spoken of. This hesitancy can be overcome through effective communication, but that has not yet happened under this Government’s watch.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosena Allin-Khan: I am going to make progress, thank you.
These measures will disproportionately punish groups whose needs are already rarely reflected in mainstream health services or the labour market. Respectfully listening to concerns and offering practical support would not only tackle vaccine hesitancy; it would also help to rebuild trust in health services, which in turn could eventually lead to reduced health inequalities for all minority groups.
Let us be clear: vaccine hesitancy is entirely different from being an anti-vaxxer. Vaccine hesitancy is a challenge for the Government to tackle. It is harder work. There is no quick fix. The Government are trying to make an incredibly complex issue into a black and white one, and that does nothing to pay respect to the sacrifices that care workers have made since the start of the pandemic. More must be done to encourage uptake of the vaccine.

Luke Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rosena Allin-Khan: I am going to make progress, please.
The UK Government should learn from the fantastic work of the Labour-led Welsh Government, who are running the fastest vaccine programme in the world and have vaccinated a far greater proportion of their staff than England; yesterday’s figures showed that almost 95% of care home residents and 88% of care home staff are double vaccinated. Wales has rejected compulsory vaccinations and instead chosen to work closely with the care sector to drive take-up, as well as valuing the workforce with a proper pay rise. That is the sort of leadership that is needed here.
A failure of leadership here will place the care sector in an even more precarious situation, with even fewer staff than at present. There are serious warnings from the care sector that the Government’s plan could lead to staff shortages in already understaffed care homes. That would have disastrous consequences on the quality of care. More than 100,000 posts in the care sector are currently unfilled, with recruitment and retention already extremely difficult due to low wage levels for difficult and demanding jobs. Not only could this plan have a disastrous impact on those relying on care, but the stress and trauma placed on their relatives will affect so many across the country. We already have a social care crisis. Let us not deepen it.
These proposals are at odds with the Government’s decision to throw caution to the wind by making social distancing and mask wearing optional and up to individuals to decide on. It makes no sense. Surely forcing workers to receive a vaccine is at odds with the individualism that the Government seek to promote at every opportunity. It seems odd that care workers are being singled out. Why is there a different rule for them? Are the Government hoping that the public will simply forget about their failure to protect care homes over the past year? Is that what is going on here?
Forcing carers to choose between losing their job and taking a vaccine that they are afraid of is inhumane. These are people who often work for less than the minimum wage. They are incredibly vulnerable people and their voices must be heard. Many of these people have lost multiple family members during the pandemic. They are being asked to put their faith in a vaccine that they are afraid of. The Government need to be doing more to tackle misinformation, promote the positive benefits of taking up the vaccine and support care home staff to do so. They have not been doing enough to support care workers who have done so much during the crisis. They should be focused on driving up standards and staff retention by treating care workers as the professionals they are, with improved pay, terms and conditions and training.
We have a moral imperative not to force people to take a vaccine that they are afraid of, so I urge the Government to listen to our care workforce. Surely they deserve at least that after the last year.

Rosie Winterton: This debate finishes at 7.19 pm and I need to bring the Minister in at the end. That means that if colleagues speak for between four and five minutes, everybody will get in. If colleagues do not speak for between four and five minutes, everybody will not get in.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). I am delighted that the Official Opposition share my view and that of many of my colleagues that these are bad regulations and that they should be opposed this evening.
Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments, as I understand it, are against this type of regulation. The Minister told us that other Administrations were watching, but this Administration should be watching what the other Administrations are doing and following their lead. I must say that this was probably the most depressing performance from a Minister that I have listened to in this House. She showed a cavalier disregard for the conventions and courtesies of this House, and, as she has admitted to, she completely breached the rules under the Government’s better regulation framework, which is designed to inform decision making for regulations that affect businesses and individuals in this country. When criticised, the Minister’s response is best described as dumb insolence, and that is just not good enough. One question that I would have liked to ask in an intervention was: what is the Government’s rationale for not requiring care home residents to be vaccinated?
These regulations were laid on 22 June. There was an accompanying explanatory memorandum that expressly referenced a full impact assessment. It said:
“A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is available from the Department of Health and Social Care…and is published alongside this instrument and its Explanatory Memorandum”.
The Minister has not explained what has happened to it, whether it ever existed, and whether it contained information that she found embarrassing and has therefore been suppressed.
An impact assessment is not an optional extra. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made clear in its report of 6 July: “An impact assessment is a fundamental tool for those who wish to scrutinise legislation before nodding it through”. Indeed, an impact assessment should be cleared by the Minister before the proposals are brought forward. The Government’s better regulation framework principles, set out in March 2020, says:
“Where government intervention requires a legislative or policy change to be made, departments are expected to analyse and assess the impact of the change on the different groups affected – which should generally take the form of an impact assessment.”
That has not happened. Why has it not happened? I put down some parliamentary questions about this, because I feared that we would not get the impact assessment, and those questions have received holding answers rather than substantive answers. One asked what estimate he has made
“of the number of employees in…England who will face dismissal from their employment as a result of the enactment of regulations …and whether those staff will be eligible for compensation”.
There was not an answer to that, and there has not been one so far today. I then asked what estimate has been made
“of the number of staff employed in care homes in England who have not been vaccinated against covid-19 for (a) clinical reasons and (b) reasons of personal choice including religion, belief and conscience”.
Again, no answers—not even to parliamentary questions. How can we hold the Government to account if they will not even answer our questions?
My constituents are absolutely livid about what is being proposed. I will not quote extensively from a letter that I received from Mr Davis from Ferndown, but he says that it is completely wrong and unethical and that it makes no sense. An NHS consultant in Christchurch says that, “Mandatory vaccination would be crossing the Rubicon on medical choice, medical confidentiality and bodily autonomy.” These are vital elements of the right to privacy. A Christchurch care home manager to whom I have spoken has said that the whole proposal “undermines” the need for parity of esteem between care workers and NHS workers.
You may have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, the article in the British Medical Journal on 8 July, which says that, while it may reduce the risk of transmission, vaccination
“is not a panacea for safety”.
Why are we not saying that people who have had previous infection and got immunity from that are exempt from these regulations? I think that this is an unnecessary, disproportionate and misguided proposal. I hope that, given what has happened in Scotland and Wales, we reject these regulations and put the Minister out of her misery.

Philippa Whitford: I do not usually speak in the debates about statutory instruments on covid regulations as they apply only in England, but I feel I have to make a couple of points on the plan to make covid vaccination mandatory for all care home staff—the first mandatory vaccination legislation in the UK for well over a century.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all, I totally support vaccination and I draw attention to our recent report, published in May, on how to improve the uptake of all vaccines. Virtually all our expert contributors highlighted the dangers of making vaccination legally mandatory because while it may force uptake among some, it tends to increase distrust and suspicion of vaccines and drive those who are hesitant to become vaccine refusers.
In Scotland, virtually 100% of care home staff are fully vaccinated with both doses, without mandating it. That has been achieved through three key policy approaches. First, as part of developing caring as a profession, care home staff in Scotland are now registered, which means we have information on who we are trying to reach. Secondly, when the Scottish Government became aware that care home staff were being deliberately targeted with disinformation on covid vaccines, they arranged expert webinars for staff with our chief medical officers and NHS director. Thirdly, as soon as the Pfizer vaccine became available in December, care home staff were vaccinated at the same visit as residents. That not only improved convenience, but created a strong sense of solidarity between colleagues and with the vulnerable people they care for.
The Scottish Government faced considerable criticism at the start of the year for spending so much time and effort on care homes rather than pushing ahead with mass vaccination centres, but it has paid off. We hear that in England, 86% of care home staff have received a first dose and 75% are fully vaccinated, although I understand that that hides a wide variation in uptake. While repeat visits have now been provided to care homes in England, that was not national policy at the start of the programme when many providers reported difficulty in accessing vaccine appointments for their staff.
The UK Government have never taken forward the principle of care staff registration and professionalisation in the care sector. As has been highlighted, staff in England are not even paid the real living wage. Care home staff have faced a very difficult time in the last 18 months and we all owe them a great debt of thanks. I still believe that locally targeted support, information and persuasion would be more successful in convincing care home staff than heavy-handed legislation, which threatens their jobs.
We all agree about the need to get the highest rate of vaccination possible to protect care home residents. The difference is in how to get there. Our APPG report makes it clear that the most important approach when dealing with communities with hesitancy is not to make assumptions about the cause but to listen to them and then act on what they are seeking.
Apart from my concerns about the principle of mandating vaccination, I call on the Minister to clarify that the legislation applies to England only. The Scottish  Government do not accept the principle of making vaccines mandatory, nor do they see the need for such an approach after the fantastic uptake by our care home staff.

Mark Harper: I do not often say this, but it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who speaks for her party and, in this case, the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all. I agree with almost every word—not necessarily about the Scottish Government—she said about the right way of persuading care home workers to get vaccinated.
I should say first, before I touch on the specific proposals in front of us, that I agree with the Minister when she says it is very important that we protect those who live in a care home setting. We have all seen the damage over the past year from covid, and it is fantastic that we can now vaccinate those residents, because we know that covid is a disease that is focused on wreaking the most havoc on those who are older and those with health conditions. It is fantastic, as the Minister said, that 96% of residents of care homes have had a first dose and 93% a second dose. That means they have very substantial protection against serious disease, hospitalisation and, tragically, death, and that is fantastic. Everyone in the House—I think I can speak for everyone—wants to make sure we protect people in care homes. This debate is about how we best do so.
Let me just take the arguments that the Minister set out. First, I agree with what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said in terms of persuasion. I have certainly talked to my local health professionals, and they very much advocate listening to staff who are hesitant, understanding the reasons and then trying to address those reasons. I know that the Minister has said that a significant number of healthcare staff have been vaccinated, but it is not consistent across the country. In some places it will be 100%; in other places, it will be much lower.
It seems to me that we therefore need to focus on those areas where take-up is much lower and understand what the barriers are, rather than insisting that people have got to do something that they clearly have some concerns about. That may be because they are from a particular ethnic minority, and we know there is differential vaccine take-up there, or it may be that they are a younger female of childbearing age, and they are concerned—I think erroneously—about things they read about fertility. We need to deal with those concerns. We cannot threaten somebody who is young and worried about fertility and insist that they take a vaccine they are worried about without dealing with those concerns. I think we all agree about that; this debate is about how best to do it.

Steven Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in some cases, seeming to threaten people will only worsen the problems of trust in authority from which people might already be suffering, causing them to be hesitant in the first place?

Mark Harper: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why I think these proposals are mistaken. Let me just step briefly through the proposals in front of us. First of all, I completely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said about the impact assessment. I have been a Minister; I have been through impact assessments, prepared them, signed them off and presented them to the House, and I am afraid it is not good enough.
The proposals will have a very significant impact on hundreds of thousands of people and many thousands of businesses—it is a significant step; it is the first time that we will have mandated in law effectively compulsory vaccinations—and it is frankly offensive that it is being debated in a 90-minute statutory instrument debate in the House. From the name of the regulations it does not leap out as to what they are, and I think many colleagues were unaware of the fact that we were being asked to vote on this measure today until it was drawn to their attention. That is the first point.
The second point is that if the information is available, even if it is imperfect—I accept that it will be imperfect and there will be things that we cannot be certain about—it is the Minister’s duty, if she has that information, which one of these documents says she does and one of them says she does not, to put what she has in front of the House. She should sign it off—she is responsible for that—and allow us to see it before we are asked to vote on the regulations.
I am afraid it is an abuse of the House to ask us to vote without that information. If this was genuinely an emergency, that might be acceptable, but, as I have already said, these regulations, if passed, do not come into force for 16 weeks. That is November. There is ample time to complete the impact assessment and bring the regulations back before the House. Even if that was in September, we could then have a tighter deadline and still deliver the legislation before it is currently scheduled to become law. I think that would be preferable.
It is worth saying that I could have been persuaded, although I have reservations, to support mandatory vaccination for care home staff, if a good case had been made about the risk reduction to residents. I did not actually hear the case being made about the risk reduction to residents. It is not set out in any of the documents in front of us, and the Minister did not set it out in her remarks, but I remain open to that, which is why I would urge her to bring back further proposals later.
However, that is not at all what is in front of us. These proposals are incredibly broad: they apply to everybody who enters the premises of a care home. Even if they never see a resident or are there only for moments, the care home will be prohibited by law from allowing them to enter, and will have to ask them intrusive questions about their health status, perhaps including what health conditions they have that mean they do not have to get a vaccination. That care home will then have to ask the employer, and those businesses that want to transact with care homes will then have to ask those intrusive questions of their employees. The scope of these proposals is massive, and is particularly troubling given what the Government said yesterday in the House about domestic vaccine passports. Many of us are concerned that insisting that employers ask their staff intrusive questions about their health conditions, when there is no good reason to do so, is the thin end of a wedge.

Craig Mackinlay: My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic argument, as he always does in this place. I have interweaved these new regulations into where they would fit in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the 2014 regulated activities regulations, and have found that we are asking care homes to be the policemen of delivery people, plumbers and window cleaners with a possible £4,000 fixed penalty fine. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was aware of the extent of the fine that backs up these regulations.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that information to the attention of the House.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, because Mr Deputy Speaker wants to make sure that we get everybody in. My final point is that, coming back to the consultation that took place, it is very clear that most of the people responding did not support these proposals. They were very concerned about them; certainly, the care homes and those involved in the sector who I have heard from are very concerned about them. The proposals do not command wide support, so I say to the Minister that I would listen to the concerns that are being expressed, take these proposals away, and come back with some well-thought-through proposals to secure the support of the House. If she presses them to a vote today, I regret to say that I will be forced to vote against them.

Nigel Evans: I can guarantee that everybody will get in: there is a five-minute limit.

Munira Wilson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and I pretty much agree with everything he had to say. I wish to preface my remarks on these regulations by making it abundantly clear that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues unequivocally and strongly support vaccination, and would urge everybody who is eligible to be vaccinated. We know that vaccines are safe, effective, and save lives, and for those on the frontline—whether working in social care or in the NHS—vaccination is critical. If I had a loved one in a care home, of course I would want maximum protection for them, and therefore would want all staff to be vaccinated. The question we as legislators have to grapple with is whether coercion is the answer, and what might be the unintended consequences of mandating vaccination for some of the lowest paid and most undervalued workers in our society, and for a sector that is on its knees.
As we have heard, the care sector is facing chronic staff shortages, and making vaccines mandatory has a real potential to exacerbate those acute shortages. The Government must do much more to convince and persuade care workers to get vaccinated. As many experts have said and as we have heard already, coercion is usually ineffective or, worse, counterproductive, and risks eroding trust in the sector. Indeed, the care sector has a long history of being overlooked and underfunded. Some 1.6 million social care workers earn less than the living wage; a quarter of the workforce are on zero-hours contracts; and there is a lack of any progression or career prospects. There is a real concern that those who are vaccine-hesitant may simply leave the profession rather than get vaccinated, particularly as we know that there are serious shortages in other sectors—such as hospitality—that are offering more competitive pay.
With 1.5 million older people currently not getting the care they need, already overstretched staff will become even thinner on the ground. Care providers, many of whom are already in a fragile state as a result of the pandemic, could find themselves having to deal with the costs of tribunals and legal challenges as a result of individuals losing their jobs. What support and resource is being provided to the sector to implement this policy?
Coercion is not an effective way to overcome hesitancy. Compulsory vaccination is a blunt tool for a complex issue, and research has highlighted that pressuring care workers can have damaging effects leading to the erosion of trust, worsening concerns about the vaccine and hardened stances on refusing vaccination. Indeed, digging into the detail shows that the rate of uptake may not be as bad in some places as it initially seems. The data is somewhat encouraging in that there is a significant disparity in the percentage of staff who have taken their first jab and not their second. For instance, Wandsworth has the lowest uptake rate, with 70% of staff having had their first jab but only 53% having had their second. This could indicate that Government and NHS initiatives are bearing fruit, and that mandating vaccination could therefore be premature. Alternatively, it might suggest there is a problem with trying to get care workers back to have their second jabs. This all suggests a much more complex picture, for which this blunt tool is not the answer. As others have said, we risk going down a slippery slope to chip away at people’s rights and freedoms to make their own health choices. This decision sets a precedent and must not be taken lightly.
That leads me to my final point. In part, we have arrived at this situation precisely because the care sector has been overlooked for so long. It has long been a Cinderella service and a poor relation to the NHS, and yet again, we see that this legislation applies only to care home workers and not NHS staff, so it feels discriminatory to many in the care sector. I come back to where I started. I want to protect the most vulnerable, but I fear that these measures will do more harm than good and that we risk a mass exodus of staff from an already overburdened, overstretched and underfunded sector.
In March last year, when my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and I were asking searching questions of Ministers about testing and PPE to protect care homes, there were no answers. The truth is that the tragedy we have seen unfold in our care homes throughout the pandemic resulted in thousands of excess deaths because the protective ring that Ministers talked about went in far too late. This legislation we are being asked to support is a reaction to Government inaction and failure to protect care homes, and they continue to drag their feet on reforming the sector properly. Coercion and an assault on fundamental rights and liberties should not be the response to this. We must encourage, empower and support people to make the right decision to get vaccinated, and we must pay and value our heroic care staff properly, rather than pointing the finger of blame at them.

Graham Brady: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has said. I shall begin, as others have done, with the impact assessment—or the lack of one. I hope that the Minister will, on reflection,  accept that it is simply wrong to bring these measures forward without giving the House the impact assessment in advance. She still has the opportunity to do something about this by withdrawing these measures and coming back at a later date, and I hope she will consider that.
This is a very serious innovation. Imposing a legal requirement for people to undertake a medical intervention, maybe against their will, is a remarkable change in our law. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, it sets a serious precedent, and it is a precedent that the Minister herself slightly alarmingly raised when she said that covid and flu would be a problem as the winter approached. As yet, we are not talking about compulsory vaccination for flu, but once we begin down that road, where does it end?
The scope of this measure is unnecessary. As I said in my intervention, insisting that people are vaccinated even if they will have no contact whatsoever with residents of care homes is entirely unreasonable. The application of the measure to a plumber who comes to fix a boiler, or to a trustee of a charity who may go to sit in an office but have no contact in any of the areas where residents would be, would be unreasonable. The measure is also inconsistent. Why does it apply only to care workers and not more widely in the healthcare sector?

Mark Jenkinson: We heard from the Minister about the 99% vaccination uptake where an employer had mandated it themselves. Would it not be the case, as in the case that my hon. Friend set out with visitors, that if this was in departmental guidance, it would be incumbent on the care home to take cognisance of it in the risk assessment?

Graham Brady: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are perfectly rational arrangements that could allow particular residents to insist on only a vaccinated carer being in attendance.
I want to focus in the brief time available on a specific point: the importance of respecting religious freedom. Lime Tree House in Sale in my constituency is one of only two Christian Science care homes in the country. The rights of Christian Scientists were protected by the Labour Government when the Care Standards Bill was introduced in 2000. The then Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, gave an explicit assurance in the House of Lords:
“Perhaps I may say right at the start that the Government have no intention of preventing or discouraging people from being cared for in accordance with the principles and practices of the Church of Christ, Scientist. The Care Standards Bill will not mean that Christian Science houses or their visiting nurse services will have to give medical treatment to their patients, or do anything else which would go against their religious principles...The Department of Health will consult and work with the Church of Christ, Scientist, to ensure that regulation by the commission is compatible with the church’s principles and practices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2000; Vol. 611, c. 741.]
Christian Scientists responded to the consultation in May. Since then, they have written to the Minister and indeed the new Secretary of State—obviously, that was very recently—but have not received a response. Clearly, there is no provision in the legislation to protect this important principle.
May I ask the Minister when she responds to give an absolute assurance that the principle of religious freedom will be respected by the Government, as it was by previous Governments? Will she undertake either to introduce an amended statutory instrument in the House or, if not, will she commit to including matters of conscience in the exemptions provided for in the measure? I am talking about two small care homes, a handful of residents and a situation in which both residents and carers might prefer not to have a medical intervention inflicted on them against their will, but a very big principle is at stake.

Nigel Evans: I remind Dr Evans that I will interrupt him briefly at 7 o’clock to put the motion on deferred Divisions to the House so that we can have live votes on this and on the terrorism motion.

Luke Evans: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to that, as it will give me time to catch my breath.
Like many hon. Members, I baulk at the prospect of mandatory mask certification or vaccination. I have made that clear privately and to my constituents who ask about it, as I did not think that it was ethically, practically or even medically reasonable. We should always be proportionate in our response. However, I have also made it clear that there are specific carve-outs aimed at those most at risk. Indeed, when it comes to healthcare and public health, this is a prime example, given the essence of who we are dealing with: the elderly and the vulnerable.
This argument boils down to rights versus responsibilities. There is a duty of care by the Government and internal providers both to patients and to members of staff. The House has to navigate the difficult path between limiting the risk to patients and residents from the spread of the virus while respecting the staff’s rights and responsibilities. In the next minute or two, including the break at 7 o’clock, I will go over a couple of principles that are in practice, and some real-world challenges that we face.
According to the Care Quality Commission, when it comes to talking about vaccinations, there are three pieces of legislation that are important: the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Amendment) Regulations 1992; and the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
We are obviously dealing with the latter, but the former two measures set a precedent of safe working environments, dealing with substances dangerous to health, putting responsibility squarely on organisers and providers to mitigate that for staff and users as best as possible.
I do not expect that it will be too long before we see a legal challenge, where a resident dies from covid and the finger is pointed squarely at the care home staff, or at the care home for not having vaccinated staff, given that we know the vulnerability of the elderly. There is a duty—
Debate interrupted.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to (a) the Motion in the name of Secretary Sajid Javid relating to the National Health Service and (b) the Motion in the name of Secretary Priti Patel relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
Main Question again proposed.

Luke Evans: So there is a duty of care, and duty of care is a running theme. Currently, there is no law to say that vaccines are mandatory, so make no mistake: this is a departure from the legal precedent. However, it is not nearly as big or as wide a departure as the public or indeed this House may be led to believe, as, in essence, practically this precedent already exists in the NHS with the likes of TB.
Let us take the example of a medical student or a dental student. When a student joins a medical school, they have to have a TB check, an HIV check, a hepatitis C check and treatment to practise. While it is not a legal requirement, operationally it means that someone cannot do procedures, cannot do hospital placements and, in dentistry particularly, cannot progress. Why? A duty of care.
I do not recall a huge outburst about such concerns when the 2007 Department of Health clearance guidance entitled “Health clearance for tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV”, which was revised in April 2014, was widespread. Why? Because when people enter these professions, the overriding principle hammered in time and again is that there is a duty of care to patients, and medical schools and providers have a duty of care for their students.

Steven Baker: Of course my hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, but he has conceded that, in the cases he has referred to, that is not a legal requirement but a matter of health and safety. Why is it that in this case, he wishes to cross the Rubicon and mandate that someone may not be in a care home—apart from the conditions—unless they are vaccinated? Why does he want to put it in law in these circumstances?

Luke Evans: My hon. Friend has pre-empted the rest of my speech, in which I will hopefully try to address some of that. It is about recognising the parity between professions. We heard the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) talk about the professional recognition we need for social care. That is imperative. We have covered that in the Health and Social Care Committee, and our report is very clear that we need that parity of professional standards. We have heard time and again that people have gone above and beyond in their duty.
I am a realist on this, and I want the Government to draw people’s attention to the fact that there could be difficulties. It is going to cause a problem when there are 16 weeks’ consultation, and there could be an exacerbation of problems with the workforce. I also urge the Government to pick up on what other Members have said and encourage people to take up vaccination in the first place.
Fundamentally, however—perhaps this is what it comes down to for my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—this comes down to a duty of care to the looked-after. I ask Members to imagine that it was their grandmother, grandfather, father or mother being cared for. I would expect Members to say that they wanted the best possible protections for that individual in the institution where they were resting.

Nigel Evans: Order. Sorry, we have to leave it there. Four minutes each. I call Dr Ben Spencer.

Ben Spencer: Controversially, perhaps, I think that much of this statutory instrument is uncontroversial. The reason behind that is my own experience of being recruited to go through medical school. As part of the recruitment process, it was made very clear to me that I had to have hep B testing and I had to be vaccinated for hep B, and that going through and getting involved in becoming a medical student just would not happen if that was not the case. I think that is fair enough.
We expect our health staff to have vaccinations for a variety of conditions—not just hepatitis B but things such as chickenpox for people who have not been exposed, and rubella—because we know the impact that those things can have on the patients we look after or the people we care for. We know the huge impact covid has on the most vulnerable in our society. Its lethality—its severity—is linked to frailty, and one of the most frail groups are people living in care. It is important that people are vaccinated so that, when they have asymptomatic covid, they do not unintentionally pass it on. We know that vaccination rates are not high enough to give the protection necessary to protect people in care homes, and on that basis it is an entirely reasonable and sensible approach to bring forward measures saying that people have to be vaccinated to work in that setting. However, although that might be a reasonable approach I realise that it is different from my personal experience as I have just described, because that was a pre-recruitment process that I went through, whereas what we are talking about now is a process for people who are currently in post—people who might have been working for quite some time and have a lot of years behind them—and if they do not go through with vaccination, ultimately they will be without a job. That is a big deal. It is also important to recognise that those who may decide that they do not want to be vaccinated are not evil people who should be shunned; they are people who make decisions for whatever reason about vaccination, and that is important and should be respected.
Fundamentally, this SI is about risk, and I see two risks here. One is the risk of covid to people living in care settings, and that risk is very clear: there is loads of data on that—loads of data on the impact and on fatalities, and also on the protection provided by vaccination for people at risk of covid and protection in terms of reducing transmission. So, that side of the equation is very clear, but the side that is less clear is the risk in terms of staffing, and that is a critical issue. Some people will decide that not being vaccinated is more important to them than working in the care sector. I am  completely unclear as to how many people will make that decision and I do not think anyone knows what that population is going to be—what the numbers are going to look like. That is a concern as we already have staffing issues in the care sector and it has been a long-term problem.
Nevertheless, perhaps the only way to test this out is to bring it forward and see what happens. The 16-week run-in makes a lot of sense, but it is critical that it is monitored to see what happens with regard to staffing and retention, and if that is a big issue—if retention pressures start coming through—we will have to change course. When my hon. Friend the Minister sums up I would welcome her saying what she will do over the summer as this is being brought in to work with and engage with people in the social care sector on its impact. If there is a substantial impact, I hope that she will undertake to come back to the House after the summer recess with plans to mitigate this or change course.

William Wragg: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), and indeed the speaker before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). They are two learned medical practitioners who, with the underlying qualities that seem to attract to those positions, state their arguments in the finest tradition of the empirical method. As ever, I hope I can be forgiven for not being quite as rational as those two speakers.
I hope, too, that the House will indulge me because, frankly, I am in despair. We could perhaps have a painting next to me of Munch’s “The Scream” to get a sense of how I feel about the conduct of Government business in this House. The Government are treating this House with utter contempt: 90 minutes on a statutory instrument to fundamentally change the balance of human rights in this country is nothing short of a disgrace. It is a disgrace, too, that no impact assessment exists. I contend that it does not exist, and if that is proven to be the case I am afraid my hon. Friend the Minister will be in a tricky position if she contends it does when it does not.
The measures before us are in themselves entirely impractical. We have heard already about concerns about the workforce. I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, as he knows, but if we were to follow his suggestion, I fear that it would be far too late to repair the damage done to the workforce of carers in this country.
It is an insult to care workers in this country that all they merit is 90 minutes on a motion that nobody here seemed to know anything about last week but which we are discussing this afternoon. Meanwhile, so many of our colleagues, presumably because of the proxy vote system and the fact that they find it generally inconvenient to be a Member of Parliament, will know nothing at all about the measures on which they are voting, and that too should concern us a great deal. I will vote against these measures, if that had not been made clear from my remarks so far.
I believe that 1898 was last time vaccination was mandated in this country, and following that mandate, the rates of vaccination fell. That should tell us all we need to know. We will give succour to lunatics and crackpots who advance ridiculous theories about vaccination if we mandate vaccination. The triumph of the vaccination programme has been the act of kindness that people have felt towards their fellow citizens in doing so, and we will lose that good will if we mandate it.
A lady called me a week or so ago, and she was in tears on the phone. She has a condition that involves blood clots, and she associated the news about one or two of the vaccines with her condition. She is a care worker, and she was distraught. She now equates her illness and the vaccination—and the fact that she cannot get a GP appointment to discuss it, but that is a different matter—with losing her job. Is that what we are prepared to do to our fellow citizens as a Conservative Government? Absolute lunacy! We would expect this in a communist country, which partly explains why so many of our eastern European fellow citizens have the scepticism they do, knowing the nature of the state and how it can be perceived as being malevolent.
This instrument is an abomination. It should be withdrawn, and the Government should stop treating this House with contempt.

Helen Whately: I thank hon. Members for their contributions and the questions they have put to me during this debate. I welcome the consensus on the importance of protecting care home residents. This debate is about how best we do that and the level of evidence needed in order for us to take the steps to best protect those vulnerable residents. The problem we face is that the clock is ticking towards winter, and to a potential combination of covid and flu to which we know care home residents will be extremely vulnerable. The problem with inaction and waiting for more time is that inaction costs lives.
I have heard—I assure my hon. Friends on this—the strength of feeling about the impact assessment, and may I say that I apologise to my hon. Friends for the error, particularly in the explanatory notes to the regulations? I have done my utmost, as I did in my opening speech, to set out for hon. Members the situation with the impact assessment, and there is nothing further I can say on that now.

Mark Harper: I do not know what other colleagues feel, but I find it offensive that, because we have expressed concerns about these regulations, it is somehow implied that we want to do away with or risk the lives of people in care homes. These regulations do not come into force for 16 weeks. There is ample time to take them away, review them, publish the impact assessment and get this House to make a decision, and protect people before the onset of winter. To suggest that Members want to do otherwise and that we are suggesting inaction that would put their lives at risk is offensive, and I urge the Minister to withdraw it.

Helen Whately: No offence was meant on my part. The problem with what my right hon. Friend is suggesting is that, if there is a substantial delay—for instance, in the autumn—in bringing through this legislation, that leaves care workers who have not yet been vaccinated with very little time in which to get vaccinated, and that is why we are bringing this forward now.

Rachael Maskell: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Whately: I am sorry, but I am conscious of the time left.
Several hon. Members have argued that we should continue the current approach to increasing uptake and indeed do more. Of course, we will continue to support care workers to take up the vaccine, but, as flagged by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the question is: how long do we give that? The vaccination of care home workers in England began in December last year, about eight months ago. We did take a similar approach to that in Scotland mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), where staff were vaccinated alongside residents in care homes. NHS teams went into care homes multiple times to offer the vaccination to staff. Indeed, we saw that that was effective and more staff took up the vaccination on subsequent visits. We also opened the national booking system to care home staff early on, before there was wider availability to everybody. We have worked with communities who have been particularly concerned and hesitant about vaccination. There have been materials in multiple languages. We have worked with faith groups. Local authorities have worked closely with care homes, alongside NHS vaccination teams, particularly care homes that have had lower vaccination rates. A huge amount has been done to raise the levels of uptake among care home staff.
We then have to ask ourselves the question: what more can we do? The No. 1 reason care home staff have given us for not yet being vaccinated is that they want some more time. Well, this gives them some more time through the summer in which to get vaccinated. Some care homes, as I have mentioned, are already doing this. One example is the Barchester care home group, which has over 16,000 staff. The vast majority, over 99%, have chosen to be vaccinated. Fewer than 0.5% have chosen not to be vaccinated. But the problem, if we leave it to care homes that are on the front foot to do this, is that others will be left behind and we will see inequality, where some residents are fortunate to be cared for in a care home where all the staff are vaccinated, and others will not be so safe. That leaves us with inequality for those care home residents, who will remain at greater risk. We know that the vaccination not only protects individuals, but reduces the risk of transmission.
Some hon. Members have raised the concern that care workers are being singled out in some way. That is not the case at all. This is about the setting of care homes, where we know there is the greatest risk and the greatest vulnerability to covid. This is about protecting individual residents in those care homes by requiring the vaccination of people who enter those care homes to work—so not only care home staff but NHS staff who enter care homes. This is about protecting residents in those care homes. Fortunately, at the moment, the rates are lower than they have been during peak times, but even in some of the recent outbreaks we have seen in care homes, the index case has been an unvaccinated staff member. That just emphasises the importance of us having high levels of vaccination among staff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) asked me about the data I referred to earlier, the SAGE data on minimum levels and the extent to which that is being achieved by care homes.  I shared the most recent data that I have. What we do know is that there are still hundreds of care homes that have not yet met that safe threshold, which is a minimum threshold for avoiding outbreaks in care homes.
I say to my hon. Friends that the question before us is: what more can we do to protect those who are vulnerable in care homes? This is what we can do and I commend the regulations to the House.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Evans: I am afraid that the point of order will have to come after the Division. I am sorry.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 246.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for seven years. It is absolutely incumbent on Government not to mislead the House and to behave honourably at all times. This explanatory memorandum is a parliamentary paper laid many days ago. This has been well rehearsed in this Chamber, but it needs to be rehearsed again. It clearly states:
“A full Impact Assessment has been prepared and will be submitted”—
not is being prepared; “has been prepared”. Through your good offices, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask that Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the House conduct an investigation into this memorandum to ascertain whether the House has been misled by the Government and whether the Minister’s conduct at the Dispatch Box was good enough this afternoon?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I said earlier, it is a totally unsatisfactory situation, irrespective of whether anybody has been misled by the statement in one of the official documents. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order and will make absolutely certain that it gets through to the Department. I will, as the hon. Gentleman has asked, raise it with Mr Speaker at the prayer meeting tomorrow morning.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It always used to be the convention in this place that if a Minister was unable to answer all the questions raised in a debate, they would offer to write to hon. and right hon. Members whose questions had not  been answered in the time available. Bearing in mind the cavalier way in which Ministers seem to be treating the conventions of the House, I wonder whether it is within your offices to be able to put pressure on the Government to restore that convention as a matter of courtesy.
I look particularly at my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), who had a pertinent question that could have been answered in two words. It was not answered and I am sure his constituents, on behalf of whom he speaks, will feel aggrieved about that. Why cannot this place restore some sense of reasonableness and good manners?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have been a Member of Parliament for 29 years and many times, at the end of a debate, Ministers have said they cannot deal with each point that has been raised. We were under time pressure today, as has been pointed out by a number of Members, and therefore a number of questions have gone unanswered. Again, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order and will bring it to the attention of the Minister in order that she is able to answer the questions that went unanswered in her summing up.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Chris Philp: I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved.
This motion would ordinarily have been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who sadly had to step down from his role as Security Minister a few days ago to assist in his recovery from serious illness. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending him our best wishes for a very speedy recovery.
This Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the people of this country. Tackling terrorism, in all its forms, is a crucial part of that mission. This Government’s concerns regarding extreme right-wing terrorism are well documented.

Jim Shannon: I reassure the Minister and the Government that my party fully supports the motion, but does he not agree that we must send an appropriate message that those on the extremes, whether on the left or the so-called right, must understand that the huge majority of this UK abhor what they do and will not tolerate it, and that there will be continual proscription of cells such as the one in today’s motion? We should call them out for what they are: despicable terrorist cells.

Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This House, and the whole country, is united in our disgust for terrorism of all kinds. It is right that we call out these organisations, whatever colour they claim to have, and that we are united in our total condemnation of terrorist acts wherever they may occur.
The use of hateful ideologies to prey on young and vulnerable people is abhorrent and we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to crack down. Terrorist groups can now recruit, radicalise and train individuals from a distance, distributing terrorist material at the click of a button. The use of the internet for these purposes has had a huge impact on the threat and on the way we respond to it.
There are 77 terrorist organisations currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Four are far-right groups; the majority are Islamist groups. Thanks to the dedication, courage and skill of counter-terrorism police and our security and intelligence services, most of those groups have never carried out a successful attack on UK soil. I pay tribute to our security services for the work that they have done.
Proscription is a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations; I will explain shortly the impact that it can have. The group that we propose to add to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations by amending schedule 2 to the 2000 Act is called The Base; it is a predominantly US-based militant white supremacist group whose activities include seeking to train members with weapons and explosives.
The proscription power arises under section 3 of the 2000 Act. Under that section, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes  that it is currently concerned in terrorism. Where that statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion.
The effect of proscription is to outlaw the listed organisation, ensuring that it cannot operate in the UK. It is designed to degrade a group’s ability to operate by enabling prosecution for various related offences, allowing the removal of online material, underpinning immigration-related measures such as excluding group members from the UK, and making it possible to seize cash associated with the organisation. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or meet a proscribed organisation, and a criminal offence to wear clothing or articles that may arouse reasonable suspicion that that individual is a member of that group. Penalties include a maximum 14-year prison term and an unlimited fine.
The Home Secretary takes decisions on proscription only after great care and consideration of the evidence. Having considered carefully all the evidence in this case, the Home Secretary, informed by analysis by the joint terrorism analysis centre, believes that The Base is concerned in terrorism and that the discretionary factors support proscription. This abhorrent group, as I have said, is a predominantly US-based white supremacist militant group that seeks to radicalise and train people for potentially violent activities. It almost certainly prepares for terrorism. We believe that the training that it provides is highly likely to be paramilitary in nature and is possibly preparatory for offensive action.
We therefore believe that the statutory test is met and that the group should be proscribed. That will aid the police in their work to disrupt the threat that extreme right-wing terrorist groups pose to our national security, and will build on the robust action that the Government have already taken in the area, proscribing groups such as National Action, the Sonnenkrieg Division, the Feuerkrieg Division and Atomwaffen, which the House proscribed just a few months ago. It sends a strong statement of intent that their ideology is unacceptable and that the UK is a hostile environment for terrorism in all its forms.
Our message is clear: we will always take every possible action to counter the threat from those who hate the values that we cherish and who threaten our safety. The safety and security of the public is our No. 1 priority. I commend the draft order to the House.

Conor McGinn: May I start by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who has stood down as Minister for Security? Suffice it to say that he was everything that one would have wanted in an opposite number: he was courteous, he was co-operative and he was also combative. We wish him well.
The Opposition fully support the draft order and the proscription of the vile hate group The Base, which, as we have heard, is a US-based white supremacist group whose sickening ideology mobilises racism, division and violence in an attempt to advance its repulsive goals. We know, too, that it retains close links to other neo-Nazi and right-wing terrorist groups that are already proscribed and provides paramilitary training, resources and support to sustain far-right global networks of terror, giving them the capability to undertake terrorist activity and potentially inflict serious harm.
In a week where we have seen the repulsive targeting of three black English footballers, subjected to a torrent of vile, racist abuse, the spotlight is turned again to the ugly underbelly of far-right hate within this country. As ever, we welcome the clarity and purpose that this order will give to counter-terrorism policing, the security services and their partners, whose tireless work, much of which is done selflessly and behind the scenes, keeps us safe from those who wish us harm.
However, while we agree with this measure, I am sure the Minister will understand that I have some questions on such integral issues of national security. Last October, the new director general of MI5 warned that violent far-right terrorism was now a major threat, with eight of 27 serious terrorist plots stopped in the final stages in the past three years linked to neo-fascist and racist groups. The recruitment and exploitation of young people such as that found online via chat forums and in video games has reached unprecedented heights. The number of those under 18 among those arrested has almost trebled, and this demographic is showing a worrying increase.
This is the third white supremacist hate group that Parliament has had to proscribe in a year. I say gently to the Minister that it does all feel a little bit ad hoc. Is there a plan to address the clearly alarming rise in this genre, and can he do that without having a clear, coherent and robust strategy such as those that Labour Members have called for and still await? The Base was founded in 2018 and has been operational since. That was three years ago. There is a concerning pattern of delay. It seems that whenever we have the opportunity to discuss the proscription of a far-right group in this House, the time elapsed between its initial founding, the recognition of threats and its eventual proscription is a matter of years. What is the status of the proscription review group? How often does it meet? Does he think that it is doing its work proactively enough? Is the current process working? Does he agree that doing things seriously does not mean that we have to do them slowly?
Will the Government, as highlighted by the group Hope not Hate, whose work I pay tribute to, seek to outlaw the neo-Nazi organisation Order of the Nine Angles, alongside other despicable far-right groups? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for the work that she continues to do on this as chair of the all-party Hope not Hate group. Clearly, proscription should mark the start and not the end of the process. As such, is the Minister happy with the level of enforcement against proscribed organisations and their members?
We fully back these measures, which send a clear message that hate and terror will never be tolerated in our country. The Minister has our support and, I am sure, that of the whole House. However, I gently say that it would be good to see more from the Government than reactive, retrospective action. The threat from the far right is a serious and growing national security threat, and it should be treated as nothing less.

Angela Crawley: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons for this order. Of course, we fully support the proscription of the US white supremacist group The Base, whose  message is abhorrent. We must do everything possible to tackle these far-right groups and their rhetoric. It is fitting that we acknowledge the racism experienced by three exceptionally talented English players this week and right that we call this out at every possible opportunity.
Will the Minister ensure that any and all necessary steps are taken swiftly, and will he outline any plans to strengthen these processes? Will he ensure that Members have the opportunity to scrutinise any new legislation whenever possible? We fully support proscription of this horrendous organisation, and pay tribute to all those who work hard to tackle and contain such groups and keep us all safe.

Stephanie Peacock: I welcome the banning of The Base, which is a violent group of highly determined, hardened Nazis. Based in the United States, the group has access to weaponry and have actively been plotting terrorist attacks. Although it primarily operates in the US, its leader is living in Russia and its members are promoting their hateful calls for violence globally via messaging apps and other online platforms. Although I welcome the ban, I want to speak about the context in which it is being proposed.
As parliamentary chair of the anti-fascist campaign group Hope not Hate, I have spoken previously in the Chamber about the threat of far-right terrorism, which is substantial and rising fast. There have been numerous arrests of people accused of terrorist offences. Many of these people—usually men—are just in their teens. I pay tribute to the work of the police and intelligence services in apprehending these men.
I also want to take a moment to pay tribute to a man known as Arthur, who operated at different times to counter the far-right. Twenty-seven years ago this summer, Arthur, a committed anti-fascist, met Nick Lowles, who worked then for Searchlight and who now runs Hope not Hate. Over the course of 10 years, Arthur worked at the heart of the British National party. During more than 400 events—from rallies to campaign sessions and more—Arthur gathered information about the activities of this fascist party. Using that information, Searchlight and Nick Lowles were able to sow division within the party and wreak havoc on its London operation.
Arthur was the first source to link the London nail bomber to the far right and help the police to stop his murderous campaign. Arthur never saw any recognition and he even lost out on a huge reward in order to continue his infiltration. Even his own family thought he was a Nazi activist. Now his story is being told for the first time, and I want to put my thanks—and, I hope, the thanks of the whole House—on record. We owe Arthur a huge debt of gratitude.
Countering far-right groups today, just as we have in the past, is vital to protect our way of life and our democracy. Although I welcome the steady stream of banning orders against these Nazi groups, I remain concerned that the Government still have not acted with regard to the Order of Nine Angles. Hope not Hate has consistently provided a clear case for the proscription of the O9A. It is not a new organisation; it has been active since the 1970s. Its members make use of largely unmonitored, encrypted social media platforms to conduct  activities that are illegal under existing legislation and that warrant the group’s proscription under the same laws—namely, inciting or inspiring people to commit acts of terror. Nazis with links to the O9A have been convicted of terror offences in the UK and strong evidence suggests that children as young as 13 are being groomed by the group. Figures associated with the group consistently promote content that seeks to incite acts of horrendous violence.
This is not the first time that I am asking the Government to respond to this urgent call. It is more than a year since I co-ordinated a letter from a cross-party group of MPs, calling for the O9A to be banned. The Government have previously, understandably, refused to explain their rationale for allowing this terror group to continue to be free of a proscription order, but does the Minister share my frustration that this deplorable situation continues to exist?
In previous debates of this kind, Ministers have consistently made two points: first, that they will not provide any commentary on which groups are or are not being considered for proscription by the review group; and, secondly, that the proscription review process is robust and working as it should. Does the Minister seriously consider a situation whereby the Order of Nine Angles can operate without being subject to a banning order suggests that the proscription review process is working perfectly? Does that process really have sufficient resources to ensure that it can move briskly enough? Given that the far right poses the fastest growing terror threat, is the Minister satisfied that the intelligence gathering is sufficiently strong to proactively consider groups that engage in activity close to the threshold for proscription? Is he happy with the level of enforcement against proscribed organisations and their members?
In the past, proscription was the culmination of a process against a group, whereas it should merely be the start. I again urge the Government to review the process fully and seriously to consider the proscription of other groups, such as the Order of Nine Angles, that have a clear and consistent record of spreading hate and conspiring to commit acts of terror.

Chris Philp: I thank the Members who have contributed to this evening’s debate. There is clear unanimity throughout the House on the importance of taking action against terrorist threats where they arise, regardless of the ideology that sits behind them. I assure the House that the process for seeking, identifying and reviewing organisations that might be subject to proscription proceedings is ongoing at all times, properly resourced and occurs on a regular and frequent basis. There is eternal vigilance among the counter-terrorism officers associated with the Home Office and the security services more widely. We take the threat of terrorism extremely seriously, as Members would imagine, which is why this is the second time in just a few months that I have come to this Dispatch Box to proscribe another organisation.

Stephanie Peacock: If the Minister cannot address the issue of the Order of Nine Angles in the Chamber this evening, will he agree to meet me to discuss it further?

Chris Philp: As the hon. Lady said in her speech a few minutes ago, we do not comment on specific organisations for obvious reasons of operational security. In the absence of the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who has very sadly had to stand down owing to ill health, ministerial responsibility sits for the time being with Baroness Williams of Trafford, to whom I shall pass on the hon. Lady’s request.
In conclusion, let me repeat how seriously this Government take action against terrorist organisations, regardless of their ideological motivation. We will leave no stone unturned nor any path untrodden in our ceaseless battle to keep our fellow citizens safe.
Question put and agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: I now suspend the House for just one minute in order that preparations can be made for the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

English Votes for English Laws

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X (Certification according to territorial application etc) be rescinded and the following changes be made to Standing Orders:
(1) in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays), leave out “Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions) and of”;
(2) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy), leave out “or in any legislative grand committee”;
(3) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and means motions), leave out “or, in the case of a motion to which Standing Order No. 83U applies, forthwith upon the announcement of the Speaker’s decision with respect to the motion under that Standing Order”;
(4) in Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order) leave out paragraphs and (6);
(5) in Standing Order No. 64 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills), leave out “, of Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions)”;
(6) in Standing Order No. 73 (Report of bills committed to public bill committees), leave out “or the Legislative Grand Committee (England)”;
(7) in Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions), in paragraph (9), leave out “up to and including”;
(8) in Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees),
(a) in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration” and
(b) in paragraph (5), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration”;
(9) in Standing Order No. 83C (Programming sub-committees),
(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(e), leave out “up to and including”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (12)(b), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) in sub-paragraph (14) leave out “up to and including”;
(10) in Standing Order No. 83D (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in public bill committee or in committee of the whole House, etc.),
(a) in the title, leave out “, etc.”, and
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “, in the Legislative Grand Committee (England) when exercising functions under Standing Order No. 83W(6)(a) (Legislative Grand Committees)”;
(11) in Standing Order No. 83E (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration up to and including third reading),
(a) in the title for the words “and up to and including” substitute “or”,
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) leave out paragraph (5);
(12) in Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments), leave out paragraphs to (11);
(13) in Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords),
(a) in paragraph (5), leave out “, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7),”, and
(b) leave out paragraphs (6) to (9);
(14) in Standing Order No. 83I (Programme orders: supplementary provisions), in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee”; and
(15) in Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of general committees) leave out sub-paragraph (2)(iv).
The motion in my name on the Order Paper would rescind Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X and make related changes across the House’s Standing Orders to remove the English votes for English laws—EVEL—process from the legislative process.

Desmond Swayne: Will the Leader of the House allow me?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My Lord, my right hon. Friend has come in very early! Yes, of course I give way to him.

Desmond Swayne: Am I to assume from the motion that the Leader of the House does not have an answer to the West Lothian question? Or does he take the view that it does not deserve one and that it was impertinent of the late Tam Dalyell of the Binns to have asked it in the first place?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The West Lothian question has not had a very satisfactory answer since it was posed by Tam Dalyell, who was a most distinguished Member of this House, but if there were an answer, EVEL would not be it.
The EVEL measures were first proposed by way of a counterpoise to the extension of devolution, which saw further legislative powers handed to the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments in the wake of the 2014 once-in-a-generation Scottish independence referendum. The argument put forward then, as some Members may recall from a Chequers summit held at that time, was that an English votes for English laws process represented an honest attempt to answer the West Lothian question.
Proposals for Standing Order changes were not brought forward until after the 2015 general election, during which the potential influence of Scottish MPs on English matters featured especially prominently. Some Members may remember a rather marvellous election poster, depicting the then Leader of the Opposition tucked into the pocket of Mr Alex Salmond in the place of a pocket handkerchief. Once the initial excitement over the proposals’ introduction had abated, it quickly became obvious that their practical implementation would prove unwieldy and—dare I say it?—even baffling.
The procedure amended the legislative process to provide MPs representing English constituencies—or English and Welsh constituencies—with the opportunity to have an additional say on matters that applied to England only or England and Wales only. The procedure also applies to legislation introducing a tax measure that affects only England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which must be approved by a majority of MPs representing constituencies in those areas.

Mark Tami: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has been following.

Mark Tami: I represent a border area and many of the specialist hospitals that my constituents go to are on the English side of the border. Indeed, the Countess of Chester Hospital was built as a Welsh and English hospital to serve the residents of Deeside in Wales and  Chester in Cheshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was unfair that I could not effectively vote or express a view on that whereas someone from the south-east of England, who had no interest in that matter, could?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As the majority of taxation is set on a United Kingdom basis and the Barnett formula ensures that the level of spending provided for services is proportionate to decisions taken by the Union Parliament, I do not think that is as unreasonable as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Sometimes the West Lothian question’s significance gets exaggerated.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that the Government believe that the procedure has added complexity and delay to the legislative process. Slightly over 10% of all our Standing Orders are taken up with enabling EVEL-doing and its additional parliamentary stages, notably the Legislative Grand Committee, which is held on the Floor of the House between Report and Third Reading. In theory, that allows English MPs to veto provisions, but not to propose them. In practice, it has resulted only in short-lived and poorly attended debates that have always concluded with English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, giving their consent to England only, or England and Wales only, provisions.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been waiting with bated breath. His breath is now unbated.

Pete Wishart: Does the Leader of the House recall who has made the most contributions to the Legislative Grand Committee? Perhaps he could tell the House how many contributions that Member made.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have a sneaking suspicion that we may get the accurate statistics from a careful consultation of Hansard that took place earlier this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman himself. May I point out that I made a speech on the matter in 2011, when I outlined all the difficulties that the system would have? I therefore predate the hon. Gentleman in that I opposed EVEL before it had even been proposed. As a good Catholic, I would be expected always to oppose evil.

John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government think that England uniquely of the four main parts of the United Kingdom should have no devolved powers at all?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am loth to disagree with my right hon. Friend, who understands these issues very well, and had a better scheme of his own, which would have been called EVEN—English votes for English needs—rather than EVEL. We could be having a very different debate this evening had EVEN been adopted rather than EVEL.
There is of course devolution within England, but it is different. It is not to England as a country, because England makes up 85% of the total of the United Kingdom. As far as I am aware, there is no federal system in the  world where one part makes up such a great proportion. The size of England—and of course the influence that comes from that—would unbalance any settlement we tried to create.
It is not just the ability of this place to legislate effectively that has been constrained. More fundamentally, the EVEL procedure has undermined the role of Parliament as the Union Parliament in which all parts of the United Kingdom are represented equally. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made that point very eloquently, and I greatly agree with him that there should be equal representation of all Members. I have spoken elsewhere about the ways in which the UK Parliament has become a more important place in our national life following the return of powers from the European Union. Since our departure, we have once again begun legislating properly in areas touching on devolved matters, including trade, health and safety, employment laws and state aid. All of these are now powers returned to the United Kingdom, and we are able to legislate properly because all MPs are equal once again in a Parliament that considers the matters put before it from the broadest possible Union perspective.
Rather than returning to an unhappy, asymmetric answer to the devolution question, the evolving operation of this Parliament has made this much less of a black and white issue than it would have felt in 2014. That is good news, because it reflects the way in which Brexit has strengthened the Union. We have now restored authority in this Parliament to address the problems of voters in every part of the United Kingdom. That is in all of our interests, because our country is much more than the sum of its parts. Just as George III gloried in the name of Britain, so do I, for our global influence together is far greater. Take, for example, our security relationships; the nuclear deterrent, based in Scotland; our shared history as brothers in arms; the economic successes that we have had; or the global reach of the empire builders. One may visit Argyle Street in Hong Kong, the Glencairn suburb of Cape Town, the Aberdare national park in Kenya, or even sunny Cardiff-by-the-Sea in California to see our past shared influence writ large across the world.

Harriett Baldwin: Will the Lord President give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course; it would be a privilege.

Harriett Baldwin: The Lord President is making a magnificent speech, as one would expect, but how would he feel if hypothetically, the outcome that was depicted back in 2015—with Alex Salmond having the shadow Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), in his suit pocket—had come to pass, and the Lord President’s constituents in North East Somerset faced a situation in which they were having laws made for them without there being a majority view in Parliament in England?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We are one country, and I accept that voters in Gloucestershire can have an influence on what happens in Somerset—that is a much greater thing for me to confess to than that voters in Scotland should have a say. We are one nation, and I accept the basic principle of democracy that the overall will of that nation must be observed. However, I put it to my hon. Friend that that poster had an effect in the campaign,  because it made people think about what the consequences of voting Labour could be, and they did not particularly want to be ruled by Alex Salmond.
I have mentioned all those places around the world that are named after places in the United Kingdom, and I have not yet had the chance to mention Belfast. There are many Belfasts around the world, but there are many English place names, too: there are 22 places in the United States called Somerset, in addition to the one in Wisconsin, and there is also a Somerset in KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Bermuda, and of course Pomeroon-Supenaam. There are Somersets everywhere; there are Scottish place names everywhere, Welsh ones and Northern Irish ones, as part of the success of our country as global Britain before the term “global Britain” was invented.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sure that there are many places called Bath, and on that basis, I of course give way to the hon. Lady.

Wera Hobhouse: Can I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are many streets in this country called Hanover Street, which is my home town in Germany?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we should be very proud of all that the Hanoverians did in this country, not least providing us with a royal household that served with great distinction.
We have had great success as a United Kingdom across the globe, and after our EU exit, we can work together to do more to increase prosperity across the whole country. Members need look no further than the Subsidy Control Bill or the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for examples of us making good use of competencies taken back from Europe. In that context, the tiresome and ineffectual EVEL process seems less of a priority, particularly given the ease with which Governments can make changes to Standing Orders of this kind to suit them—a point that will not be lost on those of us elected in 2010 or before, who are now spending time trying to unpick the poorly thought through constitutional changes made by previous Administrations. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is already on its way to the knacker’s yard.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way, because he has made reference a number of times now to powers that are being repatriated subsequent to our departure from the European Union. Does he not accept that when it comes to matters such as agricultural payments and fisheries management, we now have the highly unsatisfactory situation where the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for example, acts as a UK and an English Ministry? Does he not think that that makes the case for devolution within England?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is a case for devolution within England, and that is part of the Government’s approach—there are the mayoralties in London, in Manchester and so on—but no, we are also a United Kingdom. It is important that we operate as a United Kingdom and ensure that powers are used where they will be most  effective, and it is natural that most, though not all, powers that came back from the European Union should be used at United Kingdom level.

Alistair Carmichael: The Leader of the House is being generous with his time. Surely the logic of his position is that if it is unsatisfactory for this House to be at the same time a UK and an English Parliament, the same thing must apply to the Executive.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not think that is quite what I am saying. I am saying that this Parliament is the Parliament for the United Kingdom and is therefore able to take a broad swathe of decisions. It also takes decisions that affect only England, and it has votes from people from outside England affecting them. The Ministers are United Kingdom Ministers who, like this House, also make decisions for England, but they are held accountable by Members from across the whole of the United Kingdom, and I think that that is a perfectly rational constitutional settlement, considering that 85% of the population of the whole of the United Kingdom live in England. They are not, however, necessarily English.

John Redwood: I want to try to clarify this, as the Leader of the House is saying that our Ministers are United Kingdom Ministers. When the Government are consulting the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government, who then speaks for England so that it is a fair consultation?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Ministers have their different areas of responsibility. Within Ministries some areas are devolved and the Ministers will obviously consult with devolved Ministers; it is important that we have a good relationship with them. Other areas are not devolved and remain the competences of the UK Government, and those matters are decided by the Ministers themselves on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. This system is quite well known and understood.
The House will be delighted to note that I am now coming to the end of my speech. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that I was being generous with my time, but I am not really; I am being generous with the House’s time, and I am aware that this debate is time-limited. The motion seeks to make the process of legislating on matters that deliver for everyone in the UK just a little easier, and it is on that basis that I commend the motion to the House.

Eleanor Laing: There will obviously there will be a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches, but as Members have already worked out, most will not have the opportunity to speak. I see that they are dealing with that by making interventions, which is fine because that is what a debate is all about.

Thangam Debbonaire: Oh, it is so very hard to avoid starting this speech with the “I told you so” dance—which does actually exist—but alas, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is just making it too easy. In a written ministerial statement yesterday about English votes for English laws, which I will hereafter refer to as EVEL, he said:
“The introduction of the procedure in 2015 added additional stages to the legislative process in Parliament and in doing so introduced complexity to our arrangements and has not served our Parliament well.”
He also said:
“It is a fundamental principle that all constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be equally represented in Parliament, and Parliament should deliver for the whole UK. The operation of this procedure—and the constraints on the role of certain MPs—does not support this aim.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]
Goodness me! If only somebody could have spotted this sooner. Hmm. Let’s just see what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—who, incidentally, did warn me against using sarcasm in the Chamber—the then shadow Leader of the House and a fantastic role model for me, said in the July 2015 debate on the EVEL proposals. She said that
“as currently written, they are deeply flawed. We do not think that the Government’s proposals are either wise or viable. Indeed, they are likely to put the Union at risk by creating an English veto rather than a voice, possible gridlock in Parliament, and two classes of MP.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 949.]
My friend David Hanson, the truly right hon. and sadly not current Member for Delyn, said in that same debate:
“When Members walk through that door into the Chamber, they do so as equal Members.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1011.]
However, he and many others identified that the English votes for English laws provision would undermine that equality, and so indeed it has proved.
In the Leader of the House’s recent appearance at the Procedure Committee, he said:
“It is of fundamental importance, constitutionally, that every Member of Parliament in this House is absolutely equal: Minister, non-Minister, spokesman for Opposition party”—
thank you—
“Front Bencher, Back Bencher, Privy Counsellor, well established, newly elected—there is absolute equality of the regions of the country they represent. That has been the most ancient constitutional principle, which EVEL contradicted to some extent.”
I so agree. I am glad that the Leader of the House can now see the points that my hon. and right hon. Friends made so clearly and eloquently six years ago.
Then there is the contradiction between the two Houses. The written ministerial statement observes:
“The English Votes procedure does not apply to the legislative process in the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]
It is so hard to avoid that stricture from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) not to use sarcasm at this point because, as David Hanson put it six years ago:
“Lord Thomas of Gresford in Wrexham, who has never won an election in his life in north-east Wales, will vote on these matters in another place, while I, who have won elections on six occasions in north-east Wales”—
I hope he will one day again—
“will not be able to do so.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 1212.]

John Redwood: How can the hon. Lady defend the idea that her party believes in a single category of MP when there is a huge difference of powers, responsibilities and aptitudes between an MP representing a Scottish  constituency and one representing an English constituency? I cannot pass any comment here on health and education and so forth there, but they can pass any comment on that in England.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was expecting references to the West Lothian question. As the Leader of the House has said, we have different bits of devolution for different parts of the country. We have indeed a Labour metro Mayor of the West of England, who was elected quite properly by the people of the west of England. There are different elements of devolution across the entire country. That does not take away from the fact that in this place we should all be equal.
The then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) totally failed to absorb the wise counsel from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on the subject of matters of interest involving the border between Wales and England. My right hon. Friend said:
“The Government like to tell us that English votes for English laws is a clearcut issue, but it is not—and we have heard today many reasons why it is not. Residents of Alyn and Deeside use healthcare services both sides of the border.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 993.]
My right hon. Friend has already referred to that and other issues today. I fail to understand why Ministers at that time did not understand what my hon. and right hon. Friends were saying. Now, wonderfully, they do, but why not at the time? We could have saved so much time and effort.
Also, what of the need to reform the constitution of this country? Does this procedure in any way add anything useful? Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey observed at the time:
“Labour Members consider that this issue should have been properly dealt with as part of a much wider process involving a constitutional convention to examine a range of issues in a more holistic way.”
That might have answered what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was asking. My hon. Friend continued:
“A genuine attempt should have been made to come to a cross-party agreement between the parties represented in this place, and with wider civil society.”
We could still try doing that. She continued:
“Proceeding in this consensual way, rather than in the blatantly partisan way the Government have chosen, would have hugely increased their chances of introducing a successful and sustainable change. No such attempt has been made.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 951.]
If only the Government had heeded her wise words.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because, in Scotland in the 1990s, her party and mine were part of exactly that: a constitutional convention. However, I remind her in the House that that was not about a question of national identity, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) suggests. It was about better governance, and it was about bringing control of affairs back closer to the people. So the question of who speaks for England is not the appropriate question. The question should be: who should be speaking for the various parts of England?

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I do so commend to all Members the Labour party’s constitutional convention work, which continues to this day. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said at the time that there should be that attempt at a cross-party piece of work. If that had happened, perhaps the Government would not have had to admit yesterday that
“Parliament should deliver for the whole UK. The operation of this procedure…does not support this aim.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]
As my friend, the sadly not current Member for Scunthorpe, the wonderful Sir Nic Dakin said in his winding-up speech:
“That is why we are asking the Government to learn from their mistakes and proceed in a genuinely cross-party way that allows all interests to be properly examined. We need to go back to the McKay commission report”.—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1043.]
I interrupt that quote to explain for those who do not know that the McKay commission did indeed look at issues of devolution. It was commissioned by the coalition Government, and I urge the Government to go back and look at it. The report, Sir Nic said, examined the issue
“properly and thoroughly. That should be our starting point. As this issue has far-reaching implications for the way in which this Parliament operates, it is well worth seriously considering taking things forward through a Joint Committee of the Commons and Lords. That will be a proper way to proceed with a constitutional issue of such significance.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1044.]
There are probably not many people in the House who would not agree with my friend, Nic Dakin. The Government cannot complain of a lack of constructive suggestions, either at the time or now. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, having seen the error of their ways, the Government would now consider a cross-party non-partisan piece of work in which we do what we need to do to strengthen our constitution, make it fit for the 21st century for the United Kingdom, go back to the McKay recommendations and try to work out what we need to do to bring power as close as possible appropriately to people?
What of the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was recently quoted in The Times? He said:
“Ultimately, it’s a convention which arose out of set of circumstances after the 2014 referendum, where you had a coalition government and so on. We’ve moved on now, so I think it’s right to review where we are on it.”
Dear, oh dear, this doesn’t half reek of partisanship.
At the time, it was dressed up as the democratic thing to do. The Government accused those who objected to it of being party political, but it turns out that the opposite was, in fact, the case. I am afraid that this rather looks as if the Tories will do anything to cling on to power, even if it undermines democracy and even if it undermines our Union of nations, which the EVEL procedure does by creating different classes of MP in the House, depending on the nation their constituency is in. The Prime Minister is always claiming that he is a strong supporter of preserving and strengthening the Union, but in reality he seems to be a cheerleader for Scottish independence. The more atrocious he sounds, the happier SNP Members seem to be, as that makes their case for them. Feeding their indignation helps them to make their case that their sole purpose for being here is to campaign not to be here.
Creating two tiers has added to a narrative that does nothing to help preserve the Union. Poor legislation on constitutional matters seems to be a theme for the Government. For example, the Northern Ireland Secretary said last year that the new post-Brexit law was breaking the law
“in a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
That is an extraordinary thing for a law maker to say about something as important as our constitution and the way in which we operate legally.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady explain why Labour told us that Scottish devolution would solve the problem of independence, but it led directly to an SNP Government and the demand for a referendum?

Thangam Debbonaire: Well, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is democracy. There is a Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish people elect its Members. At the moment, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom, and long may that continue.
If the Government want to reform the constitution, they are going about it in an odd way by doing things piecemeal. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed last week; the boundary review is happening at some point, when it may suit the Government to put it in the legislative timetable; and there is the outrageous, anti-democratic, totally unnecessary, using-a-wrecking-ball-to-crack-a-wholly-imaginary-nut legislation on voter identification. If the Government want to reform the constitution, perhaps they could return to the McKay commission report, and emphasise the need for a national consensus-building approach to constitutional reform.
Once again, the Labour party is happy to oblige the Government with news of our constitutional convention. Over the past 15 months, EVEL has been suspended. The Leader of the House himself said in an evidence session with the Procedure Committee that
“EVEL has been suspended for a year without any loss of effectiveness to the way the House operates, any loss to the constitution, or any loss to MPs’ ability to represent their constituents.”
I quite agree, and would go further in saying that I very much doubt that anyone outside the House has even noticed. He added:
“I think the EVEL Standing Orders take up more than 10% of all our Standing Orders, for a procedure that has not had an effect on our business once in the time in which it has been available.”
I really am struggling to avoid the “I told you so” dance. Given that the Government strongly supported EVEL six years ago and have now decided to think again, I have to ask the Leader of the House what changed? What have the Government learned about EVEL in the past 15 months that has led to this devastatingly obvious conclusion that the Labour party was, in fact, right all along? What plans do the Government have for developing devolution and constitutional reform within the context of a strong and united United Kingdom?
The most disappointing element of this whole completely pointless process is the disdain that the Government repeatedly show for the people of this country and for the concept of national identity and national pride. We have seen that very recently when many senior Cabinet Ministers so badly misjudged the public mood on the  England football team taking the knee in solidarity as a team with their black teammates and to show their opposition to racism everywhere. It is time that the Government looked at the leadership qualities shown by Gareth Southgate, so inspiringly set out in his incredibly patriotic letter, “Dear England”, which I have read many times, despite the fact that I have very little interest in football. It sets out a richly layered, values-based patriotism.

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is rather digressing from the subject at hand in the 60 minutes that we have available. Will she accept that both the 2010 and the 2015 Conservative manifestos pledged to address English votes for English laws and that we are able to implement that because we won a majority in 2015? She talks about respecting democracy. She should respect that.

Thangam Debbonaire: I am entirely respecting it by helping to abolish EVEL right now. If we are talking about digressing from the subject, may I refer the hon. Lady to the Leader of the House’s very interesting geography lesson, which I rather enjoyed.

Eleanor Laing: Order. No more digression. I understand that that was illustration not digression, but now we will conclude.

Thangam Debbonaire: Being English means being proud of our values, which are generous and inclusive and valuing our diversity. It does not mean petty pointless gestures that divide us and undermine democracy—a value that we all hold dear. In ending EVEL, I urge the Leader of the House to remedy the pointlessness of the entire sorry saga and commit his Government to a constitutional convention fit for the 21st century.

Eleanor Laing: The Chairman of the Procedure Committee is not able to speak this evening after all, so we will go directly to Pete Wishart.

Pete Wishart: I am thrilled to be called to speak now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I start by setting something straight? There is an answer to the West Lothian question. Tam Dalyell and I actually came up with two answers some 17 years ago. One, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, is the Harthill services, and the second is salt and sauce. I will leave it to the House to determine which one is the correct answer.
What an utter humiliation this is for the Government. A flagship policy of the 2015 manifesto will soon be nothing more than a footnote in future constitutional history books, and, remember, it is just another Tory policy disaster. God knows what they were thinking about when they introduced this some six years ago. They were consumed with the notion that we, the unkempt Caledonian hordes, were somehow stopping them securing the democratic outcomes that they desired—us, the 59 Scots MPs out of 650 MPs, needed to be constrained and curtailed. EVEL was just about the worst solution to a problem that did not even exist.
Never before has a procedure come to this House that has divided the membership of this House into two different and distinct classes. Not only did it do that, it  did it by nationality and by geography. It is a procedure that barely anyone understands, that is a burden to the management and administration of the business of this House, that is entirely unnecessary, and that produces almost unprecedented resentment. Something that it will be remembered for more than anything else is what it has done for the cause of English devolved governance. This was the first serious attempt to create some sort of forum for English democracy. We actually agree with them. They do deserve their English Parliament. They should always get the outcomes that they want and deserve. We have even got a neat, practical and elegant solution to that, but, of course, they will not even start to look at that. There are myriad solutions to resolving this within the precious Union. The thing is that they could not be bothered doing the work. They could not be bothered rolling up their sleeves and designing a Parliament of their own. They decided instead to come here and to use the national UK Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for this doomed experiment. Imagine a quasi-English Parliament squatting here in the national Parliament. What an absolute and utter disgrace.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I do not have time to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
It satisfied absolutely no one. All it did was infuriate Scotland. Instead of securing the near federalism that was promised, Scotland instead saw its MPs become second-class Members in the Parliament that they had just been invited to lead. There were signs in the Division Lobby saying, “England only.” They would have been better saying, “Scots out.” That is what the Government did with this procedure.
The Government knew it would never work. From the first moment when they suggested this nonsense, we have told them again and again that it was madness and that, at some point, they would be here—as they are this evening—to withdraw it. Now under pressure from the SNP, EVEL is to be abandoned. This is a spectacular victory for the Scottish National party, and I congratulate all my hon. Friends on bringing down this nonsense. This is one victory that we have secured this week in the United Kingdom and, by God, we are going to celebrate like it is 1966. Believe me, we will be banging on about this for the next 55 years and we will enjoy every minute of it.
There is a part of me that will miss the entertainment of it all and the laughs that it gave us. It was designed to quell this tartan menace, but I ended up making the most contributions in the Legislative Grand Committee. With 57 contributions, not only was I the most committed and dedicated Member of the English Parliament but I beat all the English Members combined two times over.

Harriett Baldwin: Given the hon. Member’s digression on to football, which team did he support on Sunday night?

Pete Wishart: I supported the best team on Sunday night. I enjoy my football, and I can say quite clearly Forza Italia.
English votes for English laws started its sorry and doomed journey just hours after the Scottish independence referendum result was announced. Instead of the  statesmanship and consensus required at a sensitive and raw moment in Scottish constitutional history, David Cameron announced that the English question should now be addressed. With that, as well as bringing us to this point, he ensured that the campaign for Scottish independence started once again almost immediately. That campaign will soon be concluded with a victory for the Scottish National party and a victory for Scotland.
We believe it is legitimate for English representatives to secure the outcomes they want, and SNP MPs do not vote on English-only legislation or business that does not affect Scotland. If it is not in the Scottish interest, we take no interest in it. If there are financial consequences or an inadvertent impact, we will represent our constituents—but it is us who will decide that, not the diktat of a Tory Government. We commit not to participate in legislation that does not impact on our nation, but, please, let us never, ever do anything like this again.
Instead of going on about KwaZulu-Natal, the Leader of the House should be apologising to the House for wasting hours of the House’s time on a stupid experiment that went absolutely nowhere. Let us now work together to resolve this and ensure that our nations get what they want. We are on different trajectories and we want something different. Let us now give our nations what they want.

John Lamont: EVEL was a genuine attempt in good faith to answer the long-lasting West Lothian question on the asymmetric nature of devolution. However, EVEL is a cumbersome and ineffective constitutional innovation that has won few friends in its short life. Its abolition would simplify our procedures and remove a source of resentment. It would reaffirm the fundamental constitutional principle that we are one United Kingdom with a sovereign Parliament comprising Members elected on an equal basis, representing every community in the land and able to make laws for the whole kingdom. It would be the Unionist act of a Unionist Government.
EVEL has introduced a layer of complex and time-consuming bureaucracy into the legislative process. It has also, as we have heard, given our nationalist opponents a pretext to degenerate the UK Parliament. Worse still, as the procedure is set out only in Standing Orders, it would provide no meaningful protection in a hypothetical situation in which a UK Government lack a majority of English MPs.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to be Minister for the Union. He is abolishing EVEL on Unionist grounds. The principle underlying his decision to become Minister for the Union and underlying that this Government’s whole approach to the Union matters is that this Government are for the whole United Kingdom, accountable to a Parliament representing the whole United Kingdom. This is a qualitative difference that separates the UK Parliament and the UK Government from the devolved legislatures and Administrations. On this basis, the Government have a constitutional and democratic mandate to serve the whole UK, as they do in the exercise of reserved responsibilities and through measures such as the UK Internal Market Act.

Richard Thomson: I am following the hon. Member’s argument as closely as I can, and it seems to be that he is arguing that the Government brought in EVEL to strengthen the Union and now are scrapping EVEL also to strengthen the Union. Does he realise that this just makes it look like his Government are clueless, directionless and, when it comes to the constitution, simply making it up as they go along?

John Lamont: I do not accept the hon. Member’s analysis. The introduction of EVEL was an attempt to answer the West Lothian question, which many people have struggled with for many years. But listening to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), it is very clear that he loves this place so much and wants to participate. I sometimes wonder whether he really does want independence for Scotland, given his great love of taking part in parliamentary activity here at Westminster.
The existence of a parliamentary procedure that separates English or English and Welsh MPs from Scottish and Northern Irish MPs offends this core principle of acting for the whole of the United Kingdom. As we have heard, it allows our nationalist opponents to misrepresent the treatment of Scottish MPs at Westminster as second class. In the very short time available to me, let me say that, however well intentioned, the severe limitations of the EVEL procedure are now very apparent for us all to see, and retaining it would serve no practical use whatsoever. The time has come to put it out of its misery.

Wendy Chamberlain: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), a fellow member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, as well as, before him, the Chair, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
During the independence referendum in Scotland in 2014, I was not a member and indeed had never been a member of any political party. I would describe myself as a typical no voter in that referendum—which was in many ways a great demonstration of engagement with the democratic processes, but in other ways a divisive debate that pitted family, friends and colleagues against one another—in that I kept my views to myself. Would I had continued in that vein, some might say. If that sounds familiar in relation to the subsequent Brexit referendum, too, that is partly because a referendum—popular democracy—is on the surface an easy way to resolve a complex issue. But when it comes into conflict with our system of parliamentary democracy, as it clearly did post both votes, the shortcomings of such an approach become clear, and that has been the issue with English votes for English laws.
As I sat, on 19 September 2014, watching the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by pivoting immediately to plan to introduce EVEL without acknowledging the need to properly reflect on how the UK had evolved and developed in advance of its parliamentary systems, it was easy to see—even for me, as a layperson then—that this was the wrong approach. Telling Scots, regardless of their vote in the independence referendum, that the first steps of their Prime Minister was to prevent their representatives in this place from participating fully and telling those in  other devolved nations that their voices would also be neutered, was giving the SNP and others an ongoing grievance publicity point at every single vote.
It is important to remember that, when we talk about a four nations approach, as we often do in this place—for me in all seriousness, for others perhaps less so—we are talking about Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the UK. It is right that those in England query how their views are best represented, and an increased prominence of regional Mayors during the pandemic perhaps suggests that the English are finally waking up to the democratic deficit that they experience. But creating a two-tier system in this place, where MPs held a mandate at 6 pm and had it withdrawn at the next vote at 8 pm, was never the answer. It certainly did not sound like all votes or constituents counted equally.
Where I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and his party is that the systems here are broken and need to change. Where we disagree is that the answer to this broken system is to break away completely, causing economic and cultural damage to these islands—it is salt and vinegar. EVEL has been suspended now for an extended period of time and, frankly, no one has noticed because it has never been needed to offset the scenario for which it was put in place, because that scenario has never arisen. I hope that this is the first step by the Government to recognise political reality on these islands, but, frankly, I hae ma doots.

John Redwood: England deserves better, and England expects better. It is a sad occasion that this Government should wish to dismiss the only modest devolution ever offered to England, with nothing to put in its place. They leave instead Labour’s lopsided and unfair devolution, a devolution proposed and forced through a previous Parliament, on a large majority, by a Labour party that said it would settle the constitution and unite the country behind the Union once and for all. It did nothing of the sort.
Surely this Government can now see that if they carry on, as Labour did, appeasing the forces that would pull the Union asunder, they will not bring the Union together but give those forces greater strength and a better platform. Instead of Scottish electors welcoming their devolved powers and deciding to continue in the traditional mould of two United Kingdom parties contesting power, they chose a party that wishes to pull the Union apart. Some of them chose that party because they thought the Government would give in to it, and so get a better deal for Scotland; and some of them chose that party because they genuinely wanted to pull the Union apart, although they were, of course, in a minority.
The Government and I treasure our United Kingdom. We wish this Union to work for everyone, but it has to be a fair Union and it will not be held together better by appeasing the SNP or by appeasing the EU over Northern Ireland, when we above all in this House should be speaking up for all the millions of Unionists in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and throughout England and Wales, who expect better and expect fairness.
One of the crucial values that our United Kingdom shares is that idea of fairness. How is it fair to have these totally different categories of MP, with different  powers, different responsibilities and different opportunities to influence how they are governed in their parts of the United Kingdom? Why is it that England, the home of many more millions of Unionists and more loyal to our country than anyone else in our Union, is the one part of the Union that gets no justice and no fairness from this Government or their predecessors?
Labour introduced policies that sought to break the Union in the name of keeping the Union. I want this Government to mend the Union, and that means standing behind all those people throughout the United Kingdom who believe in the Union, and to stop appeasing those who would pull it apart.

Patrick Grady: I know the Leader of the House is enjoying delivering us from EVEL but, yet again, we have another debate and another attempt by the Government to disavow the work of their predecessors. This afternoon the 0.7% aid target was unceremoniously dumped, and now this evening another element of David Cameron’s legacy is overthrown.
What was it about the EVEL Standing Orders proposed by David Cameron, introduced by Chris Grayling and overseen by John Bercow that made the Johnson regime so keen to get rid of them, I wonder? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said, they were introduced to strengthen the Union and they are now being abolished to strengthen the Union. We have Schrödinger’s Standing Orders, strengthening the Union by existing and not existing at the same time, although the Union does not feel desperately strong to me right now.
Maybe it is more like the Schleswig-Holstein question: anyone who understood EVEL has either died, gone mad or forgotten what it was all about, although there were a few folk around here who had a sense of how it worked. We should recognise that and express our thanks to them for their support in navigating the system: Sir David Natzler, Sir Roy Stone, Ian Davis and many of the Clerks who supported the team of Deputy Speakers as they convened and unconvened the Legislative Grand Committee—not that any of them, least of all you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are dead, mad or forgetful, I hasten to add.
There is also Daniel Gover and the team at the Constitution Unit who literally wrote the book, or at least several scholarly articles, on EVEL. Maybe they will now get to write the history book, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—my right hon. Friend, as he should be—is going down extremely well with his many fans in Scotland’s online community with his contributions to the English Parliament.
Tonight, Scottish MPs and all their constituents will rest easy in their beds, in the knowledge that never again will their right to debate and vote on matters affecting Kew gardens, the Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Bill or the Neighbourhood Planning Bill be denied. On all those issues and more, parity of esteem has been restored between Tory MPs from Scotland and their colleagues from the red wall in the north of England—but of course in the SNP we have already exercised a self-denying ordinance on such issues anyway. We did so tonight with the covid regulations, and that was kind  of the point: it should be up to us to decide what is relevant to our constituents, not a process, procedure or rule invented by the Government.
What is more insidious and more dangerous is that we might be losing English votes for English laws, but we are increasingly experiencing Tory votes for Scottish laws. Perhaps the Government are abolishing legislative consent motions in the English Parliament because they so routinely ignore legislative consent motions from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru. I say to hon. Members on the Government Benches: don’t think we can’t see what you’re up to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire has said, we have an answer to the West Lothian question and we will be happy to put that proposition to the people of Scotland as soon as the opportunity allows. The answer is independence—and it is coming down the road.

Hywel Williams: In the 1990s, the status of England had not figured sufficiently in the world view of the Labour architects of devolution. “Home Rule all round” had been proposed in the 19th century. Indeed, it had appeared in the Labour party’s policy for the 1918 election. In 1997, however, England was overlooked—it was excluded from consideration. It was all too complicated.
That devolution settlement has proved unstable. It was a fix, not a solution. English votes for English laws was an attempt to address this basic flaw in the post-devolution Union, but it too was a fix, not a solution. I think that EVEL was more of a symbolic concession to those Members who were constantly intruding English questions into devolution debates, and I do not think that it has ever delivered a meaningful voice for English voters, so I have some sympathy with the current proposal.
One advantage of EVEL, however, was that where it applied it gave an authoritative answer to the perennial question of some Welsh MPs: is this matter devolved, and is it Barnettable? EVEL told us. Now, as a consequence of this Government’s recent, more explicitly hostile stance on devolution and the lawmaking powers of the Welsh Government, a further question has arisen: what consequential effects might Westminster’s legislation have on Welsh law and Welsh Government policy?
My request to the UK Government Front Bench is not just that they reconsider the failed EVEL procedure—not just fix the fix—but that there be clarity as to what is devolved. Barnett has long been bust. In the medium term, we need a proper statutory duty on Westminster to seek devolved Government consent when introducing a Bill that might affect the laws or policies of the Welsh Government.
Abolishing EVEL will not address the growing problem of accommodating people in England within a post-devolution United Kingdom. Even the reforms that I have outlined very briefly would only place an additional check on what is a flawed system. What we really need is independence for Wales—and no more fixes.

Andrew Bowie: I am coming to you from glorious isolation, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tonight, time and again, we  have heard the Scottish National party’s representatives conflate their party and its MPs with the nation of Scotland. I think it is quite clear that the SNP is not Scotland.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, if the West Lothian question has an answer, EVEL is not it. In my opinion, English votes for English laws is the most ill-conceived, wrong-headed and damaging measure ever passed by any Government in modern times—well, possibly it comes a close second to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I am grateful for the opportunity to outline why.
Devolution is often described as something that is new—as something that we are grappling with that has created an imbalance in how the UK is governed that has to be addressed. We have heard that repeated often, including today, but it is nonsense. Devolution has existed in the modern United Kingdom for more years than it has not existed. During this time, non-white boxers were barred from competing for a British boxing title. It seems impossible to believe it today, and it means that so many talented boxers were denied the right to compete for British titles purely due to the colour of their skin. Thankfully, progress was made with the lifting of that ban, and great strides have also been taken in other aspects of diversity through the nurturing of female boxing talent. I am sure that hon. Members will recall, as I do, their great pride in the first woman to win an Olympic boxing medal being our own Nicola Adams, back in London in 2012. Northern Ireland had a devolved Parliament from 1922 to 1972 and in that time no steps were taken to deprive Northern Irish MPs of their right to vote on areas that were seen to be devolved, even when those MPs deprived Labour of working majorities. And why? In the words of the then Conservative shadow Home Secretary Peter Thorneycroft,
“every Member of the House of Commons is equal with every other Member of the House of Commons”.
Peter Thorneycroft and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are right, but I have heard the heartfelt arguments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that the actions today are appeasing the separatists. I understand exactly where he comes from—he is a proud and passionate English MP —but I fundamentally disagree with him. In this Parliament, our sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom in which we are all privileged to serve, we representatives, drawn from across the whole of our United Kingdom, are equal and should be entitled to vote on every piece of legislation and at every stage of the passage of that legislation placed in front of us. As a Scot and a Unionist, I found it frankly offensive to be informed that I could not vote at certain stages of Bills on education or health, for example. As a Unionist, I care just as much about the welfare, health and education of people in Aldershot as I do about the people in Aberdeen. I have heard the arguments that EVEL does not prevent any MP from voting on a Bill before this House but only gives English Members the ability to veto certain legislation. We have already heard this evening that that is not true and in fact causes even greater issues.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, there is no such thing as English-only laws thanks to Barnett consequentials. Almost every single measure  debated and voted on has financial implications for areas that appear on the surface to be wholly devolved. Therefore, EVEL is bad law. It does not work and it causes more problems than it solves. Let us have more devolution in England. It exists already through our regions and localities, but let us not divide even further down national lines. We are a proudly Unionist party and by repealing EVEL tonight, we are demonstrating that to the whole United Kingdom.

Robin Millar: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie).
I speak in support of the motion. I acknowledge the good intentions behind the creation of EVEL and I recognise, too, the anxieties of some of my English colleagues. However, EVEL was born out of an imperfect devolved settlement, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) called it, a lopsided settlement. Of course, no settlement is ever perfect, but it was conceived at least in part in an attempt to balance inequities that arose for English voters as a result of the devolved settlement. As a corrective, however, EVEL did not address the root cause and could never therefore have been an enduring or satisfactory solution.
Parliament stands as the expression of the sovereignty of the British people. Therefore, it is not the appropriate vehicle for a particular form of devolution. EVEL diminishes the standing of non-English MPs and by extension, non-English Ministers. It also clouds the perception of our British Parliament, hinting at an English Parliament with non-English MPs strapped on. But that is something we are not.
Voters must know where the buck stops and who to approach for redress. Politicians must agree with one another about who is in charge, something we debate regularly here. A system without such clarity risks being pulled apart. I support the principle of subsidiarity, but standing here today I am clear that an effective and strengthened relationship between this Parliament and devolved and local Administrations, one which would address the worries of underrepresentation in Glasgow, Grimsby or Glanwydden, must be built on clarity and the clear premise that sovereignty lies with and flows from this Parliament.
For this country to thrive in perpetuity, we must never surrender the belief that there is a British people and that their voice is expressed here in this Parliament. We must never allow the principle of one Britain, one vote to be replaced by a precarious balancing act between competing nations. This is reason enough for me to support the motion today. English votes for English laws may have been for some, and for a time, a necessary EVEL, but today I hope its day is done.

Harriett Baldwin: It is good to be one of only two representatives of middle England objecting to the proposals to abolish these Standing Orders. My 2011 private Member’s Bill, the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill, put pressure on the coalition Government to set up the commission that put forward the EVEL proposals, and I well remember the Lord President of the Council—in those days he was merely the Member for North East Somerset—making  his speech. He is noted not only for being a great historian but now for being a seer and someone who can foretell the future, because he said that one day, a Government would be able to come in and simply abolish these Standing Orders. I very much regret that it is he who is doing it.
I think that we can all see the mood of the House this evening—we can all see that the motion is going to carry—but we must recognise that this was a pledge in the Conservative party manifesto in 2010 and 2015. It was a pledge that was there for a reason: because, at the time, our constituents were raising this on the doorstep as something they were very concerned about. A solution was put in place through the Standing Orders. As the Lord President said, it has not necessarily been needed in the interim, but it is not impossible to envisage a scenario in which its absence really would cause constitutional problems in this country. I regret very much that these Standing Orders are being abolished without a proposal for any kind of replacement to deal with that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who called for EVEL to be put out of its misery; my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who reminded us that, for about 50 years, Northern Irish MPs had a vote in this House when they had a devolved settlement, without any complaint; and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), who said that we needed clarity in our arrangements and should emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament, points with which I wholeheartedly concur.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). There are few people I listen to more closely than my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. When he makes a point and raises concerns about the constitution, I think a wise Government listen, and some of the points he makes are extremely fair. Devolution was lopsided and the constitution has become unsettled, and it has had too many variations to it in recent decades that have not improved or enhanced the unity of the nation.
I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that removing EVEL is an attempt to appease the Scottish nationalists. I think, in fact, that it shows we have confidence in our Union Parliament. Perhaps I am most confident in returning status quos ante. That is to say, both by abolishing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and by removing EVEL, we are trying to restore the beauty and the uniformity of our constitution so that it will work properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire quite rightly reminded us of the debate in 2011. I also had an exchange with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when these proposals were put forward in 2015, when I said that I was very strongly against any idea of a divided parity of MPs and supported the measure only because we could repeal it—which, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X (Certification according to territorial application etc) be rescinded and the following changes be made to Standing Orders:
(1) in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays), leave out “Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions) and of”;
(2) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy), leave out “or in any legislative grand committee”;
(3) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and means motions), leave out “or, in the case of a motion to which Standing Order No. 83U applies, forthwith upon the announcement of the Speaker’s decision with respect to the motion under that standing order”;
(4) in Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order) leave out paragraphs and (6);
(5) in Standing Order No. 64 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills), leave out “, of Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions)”;
(6) in Standing Order No. 73 (Report of bills committed to public bill committees), leave out “or the Legislative Grand Committee (England)”;
(7) in Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions), in paragraph (9), leave out “up to and including”;
(8) in Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees),
(a) in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration” and
(b) in paragraph (5), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration”;
(9) in Standing Order No. 83C (Programming sub-committees),
(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(e), leave out “up to and including”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (12)(b), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) in sub-paragraph (14) leave out “up to and including”;
(10) in Standing Order No. 83D (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in public bill committee or in committee of the whole House, etc.),
(a) in the title, leave out “, etc.”, and
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “, in the Legislative Grand Committee (England) when exercising functions under Standing Order No. 83W(6)(a) (Legislative Grand Committees)”;
(11) in Standing Order No. 83E (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration up to and including third reading),
(a) in the title for the words “and up to and including” substitute “or”,
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) leave out paragraph (5);
(12) in Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments), leave out paragraphs to (11);
(13) in Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords),
(a) in paragraph (5), leave out “, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7),”, and
(b) leave out paragraphs (6) to (9);
(14) in Standing Order No. 83I (Programme orders: supplementary provisions), in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee”; and
(15) in Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of general committees) leave out sub-paragraph (2)(iv).

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

[Relevant document: Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, First Report of 2021, Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, HC 407.]8.53 pm

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Richard Lloyd OBE to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 September 2021 for the period ending on 31 August 2026.
The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has produced a report, its first report of 2021, in relation to this motion.
The chairman of IPSA is appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and candidates must be selected on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. The name of any candidate must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA.
In this regard, a recruitment process for a new chairman was initially launched in the spring of 2020. That was paused and then subsequently started afresh. As is normal for these appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel, who conducted the longlisting, shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by Philippa Helme CB. The other members of the panel were Michelle Barnes, an independent panel member; Cindy Butts, a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA; and Sir David Crausby, former Member of Parliament for Bolton North East. The panel was asked to report to Mr Speaker with a list of candidates it considered suitable for appointment to the role. After carefully considering the panel’s report, Mr Speaker recommended Richard Lloyd to the Speaker’s Committee as his preferred candidate for the post. At its meeting on 15 June, the Speaker’s Committee agreed to Mr Speaker’s selection of Mr Lloyd.
Richard Lloyd is currently a member of the IPSA board and has been interim chairman since 2019. I must say that he has been very approachable and friendly to deal with in that role. He is also senior independent director at the Financial Conduct Authority, a council member of the Advertising Standards Authority, and vice-chairman and founding trustee of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. If the appointment is made, Richard Lloyd will serve as the chairman of IPSA for five years. I hope that the House will support this appointment and wish Mr Lloyd well in his important role. I commend the Humble Address to the House.

Thangam Debbonaire: I do not intend to detain the House for long. The Leader of the House has laid out the process that was followed and I have pleasure in confirming both that I have met the new chair and that the care and attention that the Leader of the House describes was paid towards the recruitment process. The panel reported fully to the Speaker’s Committee and we were able to scrutinise the decision properly.
I welcome Richard Lloyd to his post. I put on record my thanks to him for already being available to me and the willingness with which he has signalled that he is  able to hear and consider concerns that I may raise on behalf of colleagues across this House. I am pleased that he seems to understand the concern raised by many Members and staff about the time that is sometimes taken on dealing with IPSA matters, which of course takes away from the time when they are able to serve our constituents, who expect us, rightly, to account for our costs but also to be able to focus on them. I look forward to working with him closely and I am happy to support the Humble Address.

Pete Wishart: Scottish National party Members of course have no objection at all to this post being given to Richard Lloyd, who has served with distinction as interim chair of IPSA for the past few months. He has an abundant and very recognised career in the private sector and I am sure he will bring some of his skills to bear. As the Leader of the House correctly outlined, the recruitment process was gone through in the proper way. Richard Lloyd has been approachable when it comes to issues to do with IPSA and I hope that continues. There is a saying in this House, “Let’s not do an IPSA” when we are thinking about creating new institutions. The reputation of IPSA still has to be worked on, and I hope that the new chair will be able to take that forward. As regards the process and the appointment, we have absolutely no objections.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 21 June, be approved.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft European Union and European Atomic Energy Community (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 17 May, be approved.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation (Electoral Commission)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
That the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Committees

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House I will take motions 13 to 17 together.
Ordered,

Education

That Fleur Anderson be discharged from the Education Committee and Kate Osborne be added.

International Trade

That Taiwo Owatemi be discharged from the International Trade Committee and Tony Lloyd be added.

Justice

That Paula Barker be discharged from the Justice Committee and Kate Hollern be added.

Petitions

That Chris Evans be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Christina Rees be added.

Public Accounts

That Olivia Blake be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Kate Osamor be added.—(Stuart Andrew, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Randolph Turpin

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Matt Western: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this significant debate. It may seem that to talk about Randolph Turpin is to talk about a parochial sporting hero, but I hope to demonstrate just how much he helped to transform British sport.
Seventy years ago this week, Randolph Turpin took the world of boxing by storm as more than 18,000 spectators packed into Earls Court in London to witness the great—the legendary—Sugar Ray Robinson end his European tour. The scene was set for Turpin to show the world what he was made of. After a pummelling 15 rounds, Turpin triumphed. He was the world middleweight champion—the first British fighter to hold the title since Bob Fitzsimmons some 60 years earlier in 1891, and the first ever black British boxer do so.
More colloquially known as the Leamington Licker—a title that many in the constituency are proud to recall—the local Leamington lad shot to international fame overnight. But Turpin’s 1951 victory was not just a flash-in-the-pan event; his entire career was based on breaking records. He was the first and only man ever to win both the junior and senior British amateur boxing titles in one year, and his record stretched to a stunning 66 wins out of 75 fights. For some of that time, he boxed while serving in the Royal Navy at the end of the second world war.
Our knowledge of his achievements and their recognition owes much to the work of the Randolph Turpin Trust. I pay special thanks to its chair, Adrian Bush, whose dedicated work helped to lead to the erection of the statue of Randy that stands proudly in Warwick town centre. It took five long years to raise the money for the statue, and I commend the trust members for their perseverance. It was they who organised for proper recognition by those who understood his true achievement.
The fact that the statue was unveiled by some of boxing’s greats—including Our ’Enry, the late, great Sir Henry Cooper—and attended by Earnie Shavers, Richie Woodhall, Alan Minter, Neil Simpson and Danny McAlinden, tells us everything we need to know about Randy Turpin, a sporting legend among sporting legends. It is the only statue that stands in the centre of Warwick, which is why I believe this Chamber is a fitting place to remind ourselves of and recognise and continue to remember Randy’s legacy on the 70th anniversary of that momentous fight. I do not believe this country has fully appreciated what he or his brother achieved.
Behind every great sportsman is, of course, a dedicated, loving and supportive family, and Randy’s was no exception. Born in Leamington Spa in 1928, Randy was the youngest of five siblings. He was the son of Lionel Turpin, who came to these shores from what was then British Guiana to fight in the first world war.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to the House. Whenever anybody mentions the Somme, I am always reminded that it is a very special place for us in Northern Ireland. To know that Randy’s father fought at the Somme tells us a lot about the person he was and the  person his father was as well. I want to say how pleased we are that the hon. Gentleman has brought this debate to the House to recognise not just Randy’s sporting heroics but the bravery of his dad at the Somme.

Matt Western: Lionel was indeed courageous fighting in the battle of the Somme, but sadly he died some years later having sustained permanent damage to his lungs. Together with hundreds of others, he had been the victim of a gas attack. As is so often the case, his sacrifice is barely recognised, together with those of so many other nationals who served the British empire.
It was left to Randy’s mother Beatrice to raise him and his four siblings, taking on part-time domestic work to provide for them. Beatrice was the daughter of a former bare- knuckle fighter and was by all accounts a feisty woman who would tell her children to stand up for themselves when they were subjected to racial abuse.
Sporting success in the Turpin family did not stop at Randy; indeed, his elder brother Dick Turpin, the first black British and Commonwealth middleweight champion in 1948, paved the way for black Britons throughout the country to compete on the same stage as white Britons for the first time. If we accept that Randy and Dick broke the colour bar in the boxing arena—as it was described at that time—the current success of British boxing owes a lot to their work.
When I talk of the successes of British boxing, I only need to mention Anthony Joshua, Chris Eubank, Lennox Lewis and others. None of those great athletes would have had the chance to reach the heights they did were it not for Dick and Randy Turpin breaking through the glass ceiling of race.

Taiwo Owatemi: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing Randy’s history to Parliament. Does he agree that that history shows the need to have more funding for sporting activities for young people, so that we can get more diverse and more ethnic minority participation?

Matt Western: I totally agree; I will come to that shortly.
Despite Randy’s momentous accomplishments during his sporting career, his troubled personal life and at times flawed character would lead to violence against some of those closest to him and others. He was financially cheated by those he trusted, his debts mounted up and he was declared bankrupt. Ultimately, alcohol would get the better of him. Most sadly, he took his own life; he was 38.
But it is for his sporting success that we and many people in my constituency remember Randy today. His extraordinary reputation, recognised more in the United States than here, led many to visit Warwick and Leamington to pay homage to the great man. In fact, even Muhammad Ali came to Warwick in 1983 as part of a visit to the midlands to pay his own homage and respects.
Randy’s legacy in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington is clear. Only last week, I had the great pleasure to meet three talented young Asian boxers in Warwick, Serena Mali, Jaya Kalsi and Aman Kumar—to demonstrate the point made by my hon. Friend the  Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi). We stood by the statue and chatted briefly with their coaches. The reputation of local boxing clubs is still inspired by Randy, Dick and Jack Turpin. Seventy years after that great fight, the legacy of boxing in Leamington lives on. There are six other clubs in Leamington that are powerful and important in our sporting community. Another fine boxer, Lewis Williams, who won gold in the 2018 GB elite three nations championships, may soon be the heir to the Turpin legacy. It is an exciting prospect that the future of heavyweight boxing may indeed reside in Leamington.
The successes of Randy and his brother as the first black world middleweight champion and the first black British and Commonwealth middleweight champion respectively spelt the beginning for inclusion in sport. With them, the tide turned, although—let us be honest—not completely. It took more than 25 years after Randy Turpin’s victory over Sugar Ray Robinson for Viv Anderson, the first black man to play football for England, to put on a white shirt and proudly sport three lions on his chest. It is unimaginable now to think that it should have taken that long for a black man to represent his country in our national game, but therein lies another piece of history. In truth, a black player would have represented his country as far back as 1924, but was denied the opportunity—not on talent, but by the colour of his skin, for it was only when Football Association officials learnt that Jack Leslie was black that he was deselected from the England squad. Leslie is the fourth highest all-time goal scorer for Plymouth Argyle football club, but racial stigma spelt the end for his international career. As we know, sadly, even today that undercurrent of racism persists in sport. I hardly need to remind Members of the abhorrent racist abuse endured by some members of the England team following the final on Sunday. The national team and their manager brought about great pride and unity across our country, and the racism that continues to haunt those who represent England on the field or in the ring should be called out for what it is and condemned as totally unacceptable in 2021.
Alongside the new-found recognition, we need to invest in our local communities for the next generation of English sportspeople. In writing and researching this speech, I was reminded of some brilliant and talented sportspeople, in particular boxers: Cooper, Bruno, Khan, Benn, McGuigan, Minter, Ahmed, Hatton, Lewis, Calzaghe, Eubank, Honeyghan, Buchanan, John Conteh—all names I knew, even though I was not a major fan of the sport. I also remember Nicola Adams and her great success, and now Joshua and Fury.
When I was growing up, of course, I knew about Our ’Enry, but I was captivated by the great bouts between Ali and Frazier, and then Norton. One of the things I remember most is how Henry Cooper and others were described as “the great white hope”, an expression dating back to the early 1900s when heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who was black, seemed invincible. The term would be used for any white opponent who might defeat him. When he decisively beat James Jeffries, put up against him and nicknamed the great white hope, Johnson’s triumph ignited confrontation and violence between blacks and whites throughout the United States, leaving around two dozen people dead, almost all of them black, and hundreds injured.
Thankfully, today we do not think in those terms—or rather, I hope we do not. I would like to think that we consider only a sportsperson’s ability and who can better another opponent rather than their race and colour of their skin. Everyone loved Henry Cooper. I did. He was knighted in recognition of his boxing and wider contribution to sport and British life, but he was never a world champion, let alone undisputed world champion. Randy Turpin was an undisputed world champion. To repeat: he beat Sugar Ray Robinson, one of the all-time greats, to claim that particular pinnacle of sport. I hope that he will one day get the national recognition he deserves for boxing, but arguably more importantly, for what he and his brothers did in punching through the glass ceiling of being barred through their race; for breaking down the racial barriers that ultimately led to the Anthony Joshuas, the Nicola Adamses, the Naseem Hameds, the Viv Andersons, the John Barneses, the Raheem Sterlings, the Marcus Rashfords, the Jadon Sanchos, the Bukayo Sakas and so many others being among the best of British sport. For that reason, I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how this country can rightly honour Randolph Turpin.
Given recent events surrounding the England football team, I suggest that recognition of our first black British world champion is long overdue.

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate to highlight the noteworthy anniversary of Randolph Turpin’s middleweight title 70 years ago.
Anyone who reflects on the important moments in British boxing history, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s, will no doubt cite Randolph Turpin’s stunning win over the great Sugar Ray Robinson for the world middleweight title those 70 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman said, he was widely known through his nickname of the Leamington Licker. He was born in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, in June 1928 after his father moved to England from Guyana during the first world war, as we have heard. His amateur boxing career began at Leamington boys club alongside his three brothers, where he showed so much promise and became the first black boxer to win a senior Amateur Boxing Association championship. After making his professional debut in 1946, Turpin went on to win the British middleweight belt in 1950 before that momentous title win on 10 July 1951. That was a truly outstanding achievement given Robinson’s fame, prestige and competitive record. He had previously amassed 129 victories, just two draws and one loss, which is incredible.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Turpin’s story is not only significant because of his outstanding achievement—and it was an outstanding, world-class sporting achievement. It also shines a light on some of the key issues that we are still battling today. In fact, the anniversary could not be more timely. How we promote diversity and inclusion in sport; how we tackle the abhorrent racism we have seen in recent days; the long-term impact of concussion and head injury on our sportsmen and women; how we support people who are struggling with mental ill health and depression, and indeed, how we prevent domestic violence are all topics that come of Randolph Turpin’s story.
Today, British boxing is one of our most diverse sports. Most of our high-profile sporting stars are boxers from ethnically diverse backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman named a few of our great heroes. However, for the first part of the 20th century, the social inequalities in society were reflected in that sport. It is hard to believe that from 1911, boxing rules stated that, for a British title, both contestants needed to have been “born of white parents”. That rule remained in place until 1948. During this time, non-white boxers were barred from competing for a British boxing title. It seems impossible to believe it today, and it means that so many talented boxers were denied the right to compete for British titles purely due to the colour of their skin. Thankfully, progress was made with the lifting of that ban, and great strides have also been taken in other aspects of diversity through the nurturing of female boxing talent. I am sure that hon. Members will recall, as I do, their great pride in the first woman to win an Olympic boxing medal being our own Nicola Adams, back in London in 2012.
Of course, boxing is a sport that is accessible to people from all economic backgrounds. We continue to invest in community boxing clubs through Sport England and funding through the National Lottery Community Fund, and we support our elite boxers through UK Sport. However, no sport can afford to rest on its laurels: we must take steps to ensure that discrimination and inequality are identified and addressed. Like many other sports, boxing continues to look at what more it can do to promote inclusion and diversity, and England Boxing has been conducting a review of its operations from board level to grassroots in order to increase diversity at all levels. So far, that work has resulted in additional training for coaches and support staff and in anti-racism workshops, but I understand that more activity is in train.
This comes against the backdrop of the code for sports governance, which UK Sport and Sport England launched four years ago. That code sets out the standards that all sporting organisations must meet in return for public funding. It has proved very successful in setting clear expectations around good governance and diversity, but UK Sport and Sport England have just announced that the code will be updated later this year to ensure that sporting bodies in receipt of substantial public funding have a detailed and ambitious diversity and inclusion action plan for diversity right across their organisations, which is another positive step forward.
Of course, there is another part of Randolph’s life that we should reflect on, which is the impact that concussion sustained in the ring may have had. Today, we know a lot more about brain injury, but there is still much more to know, to understand, and to do. The important issue of concussion in sport is a priority for my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), the Minister for sport, who is working with the national governing bodies that are responsible for the regulation of their sport and putting in place appropriate measures to protect participants. We continue to consult very widely with various stakeholders, including representatives from boxing with whom the Minister for sport met very recently, and are assessing what role Government can usefully play in convening research and improving education around concussion and supporting technological advances.
However great Turpin’s achievements were in the ring, it is also worth reflecting that throughout the 1940s and 1950s, multiple women accused him of significant violence and domestic abuse. The Government are determined to tackle crimes that affect women and girls, but in fact domestic abuse impacts men as well. That is why, earlier this year, we achieved a historic milestone when the Domestic Abuse Bill received Royal Assent and became law. For the first time in history, there will be a general purpose legal definition of domestic abuse that incorporates a range of abuses beyond physical violence, including emotional, coercive or controlling, and economic abuse. That will help the millions affected by these crimes by strengthening the response of all agencies, from the police and courts to local authorities and service providers.
Another key concern for the Government as we navigate our recovery from the coronavirus pandemic is grassroots sports participation. It is truly vital for the preservation of our national sporting excellence that we help feed the elite level with the grassroots base, which is why the Government’s strategy, “Sporting Future”, puts increased participation at the very heart of the long-term direction of sport in this country. Since 2017, Sport England has provided a range of grassroots funding to boxing totalling more than £8.2 million, and this significant funding includes £3.2 million to grassroots boxing projects, £4.25 million to England Boxing across the 2017 to 2021 cycle, plus an additional £999,000, to be precise, in covid roll-over funding from 2020-21. Grassroots facilities in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have also benefited from the Government’s £100 million national leisure recovery fund for local authorities, with Warwick District Council awarded £277,851. This emergency funding package has supported public sector leisure centres to reopen to the public, giving the sport and physical activity sector the very best chance of recovering from this pandemic.
In conclusion, I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the attention of the House the story of his prestigious and incredibly memorable constituent. It is always refreshing to reflect on how constituency matters have a wider impact on the world of sport and on the global impact of one of his constituents. I thank him for securing the debate. He asked whether I would be prepared to meet him. I am not the Minister for sport but I will certainly pass on his request to my colleague who is. I am sure he would be very happy to accept that request.

Matt Western: I understand and appreciate that. I just want to stress the point that Randolph Turpin had many battles, as the Minister has mentioned, but he was the first British world champion of the 20th century, he fought through the bar on colour and he beat one of the finest boxers ever, but there is no national recognition for this person. It would do a great deal for social justice in this country if he had some recognition at long last, so I hope that that invitation will be taken up by the Minister.

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, I absolutely agree. I have to admit that until this week I had no previous knowledge of this story and it is a shame that such a significant figure in the history of British boxing is unknown and is not a household name in the way that Henry Cooper is. I am sure that the Minister for sport will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how that can be rectified.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
  Andrew Mitchell


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
  Kenny MacAskill


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Andrew Mitchell


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) ( LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wera Hobhouse


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore